Reliability of large language models in managing odontogenic sinusitis clinical scenarios: a preliminary multidisciplinary evaluation
Alberto Maria Saibene, Fabiana Allevi, Christian Calvo‐Henríquez, Antonino Maniaci, Miguel Mayo‐Yáñez, Alberto Paderno, Luigi Angelo Vaira, Giovanni Felisati, John R. Craig
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the utility of large language model (LLM) artificial intelligence tools, Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) versions 3.5 and 4, in managing complex otolaryngological clinical scenarios, specifically for the multidisciplinary management of odontogenic sinusitis (ODS). METHODS: A prospective, structured multidisciplinary specialist evaluation was conducted using five ad hoc designed ODS-related clinical scenarios. LLM responses to these scenarios were critically reviewed by a multidisciplinary panel of eight specialist evaluators (2 ODS experts, 2 rhinologists, 2 general otolaryngologists, and 2 maxillofacial surgeons). Based on the level of disagreement from panel members, a Total Disagreement Score (TDS) was calculated for each LLM response, and TDS comparisons were made between ChatGPT3.5 and ChatGPT4, as well as between different evaluators. RESULTS: While disagreement to some degree was demonstrated in 73/80 evaluator reviews of LLMs' responses, TDSs were significantly lower for ChatGPT4 compared to ChatGPT3.5. Highest TDSs were found in the case of complicated ODS with orbital abscess, presumably due to increased case complexity with dental, rhinologic, and orbital factors affecting diagnostic and therapeutic options. There were no statistically significant differences in TDSs between evaluators' specialties, though ODS experts and maxillofacial surgeons tended to assign higher TDSs. CONCLUSIONS: LLMs like ChatGPT, especially newer versions, showed potential for complimenting evidence-based clinical decision-making, but substantial disagreement was still demonstrated between LLMs and clinical specialists across most case examples, suggesting they are not yet optimal in aiding clinical management decisions. Future studies will be important to analyze LLMs' performance as they evolve over time.