Evaluating cognitive performance: Traditional methods vs. ChatGPT.

Background: NLP models like ChatGPT promise to revolutionize text-based content delivery, particularly in medicine. Yet, doubts remain about ChatGPT's ability to reliably support evaluations of cognitive performance, warranting further investigation into its accuracy and comprehensiveness in this area.

Method: A cohort of 60 cognitively normal individuals and 30 stroke survivors underwent a comprehensive evaluation, covering memory, numerical processing, verbal fluency, and abstract thinking. Healthcare professionals and NLP models GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 conducted evaluations following established standards. Scores were compared, and efforts were made to refine scoring protocols and interaction methods to enhance ChatGPT's potential in these evaluations.

Result: Within the cohort of healthy participants, the utilization of GPT-3.5 revealed significant disparities in memory evaluation compared to both physician-led assessments and those conducted utilizing GPT-4 ( < 0.001). Furthermore, within the domain of memory evaluation, GPT-3.5 exhibited discrepancies in 8 out of 21 specific measures when compared to assessments conducted by physicians ( < 0.05). Additionally, GPT-3.5 demonstrated statistically significant deviations from physician assessments in speech evaluation ( = 0.009). Among participants with a history of stroke, GPT-3.5 exhibited differences solely in verbal assessment compared to physician-led evaluations ( = 0.002). Notably, through the implementation of optimized scoring methodologies and refinement of interaction protocols, partial mitigation of these disparities was achieved.

Conclusion: ChatGPT can produce evaluation outcomes comparable to traditional methods. Despite differences from physician evaluations, refinement of scoring algorithms and interaction protocols has improved alignment. ChatGPT performs well even in populations with specific conditions like stroke, suggesting its versatility. GPT-4 yields results closer to physician ratings, indicating potential for further enhancement. These findings highlight ChatGPT's importance as a supplementary tool, offering new avenues for information gathering in medical fields and guiding its ongoing development and application.