Scholarlink

Background <p>This study evaluated the feasibility of ChatGPT and Gemini, two off-the-shelf large language models (LLMs), to automate causality assessments, focusing on Adverse Events Following Immunizations (AEFIs) of myocarditis and pericarditis related to COVID-19 vaccines.</p> Methods <p>We assessed 150 COVID-19-related cases of myocarditis and pericarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the United States of America (USA). Both LLMs and human experts conducted the World Health Organization (WHO) algorithm for vaccine causality assessments, and inter-rater agreement was measured using percentage agreement. Adherence to the WHO algorithm was evaluated by comparing LLM responses to the expected sequence of the algorithm. Statistical analyses, including descriptive statistics and Random Forest modeling, explored case complexity (e.g., string length measurements) and factors affecting LLM performance and adherence.</p> Results <p>ChatGPT showed higher adherence to the WHO algorithm (34%) compared to Gemini (7%) and had moderate agreement (71%) with human experts, whereas Gemini had fair agreement (53%). Both LLMs often failed to recognize listed AEFIs, with ChatGPT and Gemini incorrectly identifying 6.7% and 13.3% of AEFIs, respectively. ChatGPT showed inconsistencies in 8.0% of cases and Gemini in 46.7%. For ChatGPT, adherence to the algorithm was associated with lower string complexity in prompt sections. The random forest analysis achieved an accuracy of 55% (95% confidence interval: 35.7–73.5) for predicting adherence to the WHO algorithm for ChatGPT.</p> Conclusion <p>Notable limitations of ChatGPT and Gemini have been identified in their use for aiding causality assessments in vaccine safety. ChatGPT performed better, with higher adherence and agreement with human experts. In the investigated scenario, both models are better suited as complementary tools to human expertise.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Off-the-Shelf Large Language Models for Causality Assessment of Individual Case Safety Reports: A Proof-of-Concept with COVID-19 Vaccines

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月12日

查看全文
  • Andrea Abate,
  • Elisa Poncato,
  • Maria Antonietta Barbieri,
  • Greg Powell,
  • Andrea Rossi,
  • Simay Peker,
  • Anders Hviid,
  • Andrew Bate,
  • Maurizio Sessa

摘要

Background

This study evaluated the feasibility of ChatGPT and Gemini, two off-the-shelf large language models (LLMs), to automate causality assessments, focusing on Adverse Events Following Immunizations (AEFIs) of myocarditis and pericarditis related to COVID-19 vaccines.

Methods

We assessed 150 COVID-19-related cases of myocarditis and pericarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the United States of America (USA). Both LLMs and human experts conducted the World Health Organization (WHO) algorithm for vaccine causality assessments, and inter-rater agreement was measured using percentage agreement. Adherence to the WHO algorithm was evaluated by comparing LLM responses to the expected sequence of the algorithm. Statistical analyses, including descriptive statistics and Random Forest modeling, explored case complexity (e.g., string length measurements) and factors affecting LLM performance and adherence.

Results

ChatGPT showed higher adherence to the WHO algorithm (34%) compared to Gemini (7%) and had moderate agreement (71%) with human experts, whereas Gemini had fair agreement (53%). Both LLMs often failed to recognize listed AEFIs, with ChatGPT and Gemini incorrectly identifying 6.7% and 13.3% of AEFIs, respectively. ChatGPT showed inconsistencies in 8.0% of cases and Gemini in 46.7%. For ChatGPT, adherence to the algorithm was associated with lower string complexity in prompt sections. The random forest analysis achieved an accuracy of 55% (95% confidence interval: 35.7–73.5) for predicting adherence to the WHO algorithm for ChatGPT.

Conclusion

Notable limitations of ChatGPT and Gemini have been identified in their use for aiding causality assessments in vaccine safety. ChatGPT performed better, with higher adherence and agreement with human experts. In the investigated scenario, both models are better suited as complementary tools to human expertise.