• Clement Gakuba, Charlene Le Barbey, Alexandre Sar, Gregory Bonnet, Damiano Cerasuolo, Mikhael Giabicani, and Jean-Denis Moyer.
• CHU de Caen Normandie, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Caen, France.
• Crit. Care Med. 2024 Mar 6.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the capacity of ChatGPT, a widely accessible and uniquely popular artificial intelligence-based chatbot, in predicting the 6-month outcome following moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI).DesignSingle-center observational retrospective study.SettingData are from a neuro-ICU from a level 1 trauma center.PatientsAll TBI patients admitted to ICU between September 2021 and October 2022 were included in a prospective database.InterventionsNone.Measurements And Main ResultsBased on anonymized clinical, imaging, and biological information available at the patients' hospital admission and extracted from the database, clinical vignettes were retrospectively submitted to ChatGPT for prediction of patients' outcomes. The predictions of two intensivists (one neurointensivist and one non-neurointensivist) both from another level 1 trauma center (Beaujon Hospital), were also collected as was the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in Traumatic Brain Injury (IMPACT) scoring. Each intensivist, as well as ChatGPT, made their prognostic evaluations independently, without knowledge of the others' predictions and of the patients' actual management and outcome. Both the intensivists and ChatGPT were given access to the exact same set of information. The main outcome was a 6-month-functional status dichotomized into favorable (Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended [GOSE] ≥ 5) versus poor (GOSE < 5). Prediction of intracranial hypertension management, pulmonary infectious risk, and removal of life-sustaining therapies was also investigated as secondary outcomes. Eighty consecutive moderate-to-severe TBI patients were included. For the 6-month outcome prognosis, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) for ChatGPT, the neurointensivist, the non-neurointensivist, and IMPACT were, respectively, 0.62 (0.50-0.74), 0.70 (0.59-0.82), 0.71 (0.59-0.82), and 0.81 (0.72-0.91). ChatGPT had the highest sensitivity (100%), but the lowest specificity (26%). For secondary outcomes, ChatGPT's prognoses were generally less accurate than clinicians' prognoses, with lower AUC values for most outcomes.ConclusionsThis study does not support the use of ChatGPT for prediction of outcomes after TBI.Copyright © 2024 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

5 keywords...

hide…