PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Rogasch, Julian M.M.
AU  - Metzger, Giulia
AU  - Preisler, Martina
AU  - Galler, Markus
AU  - Thiele, Felix
AU  - Brenner, Winfried
AU  - Feldhaus, Felix
AU  - Wetz, Christoph
AU  - Amthauer, Holger
AU  - Furth, Christian
AU  - Schatka, Imke
TI  - ChatGPT: Can You Prepare My Patients for [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT and Explain My Reports?
AID  - 10.2967/jnumed.123.266114
DP  - 2023 Sep 14
TA  - Journal of Nuclear Medicine
PG  - jnumed.123.266114
4099  - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/early/2023/09/14/jnumed.123.266114.short
4100  - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/early/2023/09/14/jnumed.123.266114.full
AB  - We evaluated whether the artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT can adequately answer patient questions related to [18F]FDG PET/CT in common clinical indications before and after scanning. Methods: Thirteen questions regarding [18F]FDG PET/CT were submitted to ChatGPT. ChatGPT was also asked to explain 6 PET/CT reports (lung cancer, Hodgkin lymphoma) and answer 6 follow-up questions (e.g., on tumor stage or recommended treatment). To be rated “useful” or “appropriate,” a response had to be adequate by the standards of the nuclear medicine staff. Inconsistency was assessed by regenerating responses. Results: Responses were rated “appropriate” for 92% of 25 tasks and “useful” for 96%. Considerable inconsistencies were found between regenerated responses for 16% of tasks. Responses to 83% of sensitive questions (e.g., staging/treatment options) were rated “empathetic.” Conclusion: ChatGPT might adequately substitute for advice given to patients by nuclear medicine staff in the investigated settings. Improving the consistency of ChatGPT would further increase reliability.