Magdalena M. Misiak

Ahmed Abdeen Hamed, Byung Suk Lee, Alessandro Crimi et al.

Since the launch of various generative AI tools, scientists have been striving to evaluate their capabilities and contents, in the hope of establishing trust in their generative abilities. Regulations and guidelines are emerging to verify generated contents and identify novel uses. we aspire to demonstrate how ChatGPT claims are checked computationally using the rigor of network models. We aim to achieve fact-checking of the knowledge embedded in biological graphs that were contrived from ChatGPT contents at the aggregate level. We adopted a biological networks approach that enables the systematic interrogation of ChatGPT's linked entities. We designed an ontology-driven fact-checking algorithm that compares biological graphs constructed from approximately 200,000 PubMed abstracts with counterparts constructed from a dataset generated using the ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo model. In 10-samples of 250 randomly selected records a ChatGPT dataset of 1000 "simulated" articles , the fact-checking link accuracy ranged from 70% to 86%. This study demonstrated high accuracy of aggregate disease-gene links relationships found in ChatGPT-generated texts.

Ahmed Abdeen Hamed, Alessandro Crimi, Magdalena M. Misiak et al.

The generative capabilities of LLM models offer opportunities for accelerating tasks but raise concerns about the authenticity of the knowledge they produce. To address these concerns, we present a computational approach that evaluates the factual accuracy of biomedical knowledge generated by an LLM. Our approach consists of two processes: generating disease-centric associations and verifying these associations using the semantic framework of biomedical ontologies. Using ChatGPT as the selected LLM, we designed prompt-engineering processes to establish linkages between diseases and related drugs, symptoms, and genes, and assessed consistency across multiple ChatGPT models (e.g., GPT-turbo, GPT-4, etc.). Experimental results demonstrate high accuracy in identifying disease terms (88%-97%), drug names (90%-91%), and genetic information (88%-98%). However, symptom term identification was notably lower (49%-61%), due to the informal and verbose nature of symptom descriptions, which hindered effective semantic matching with the formal language of specialized ontologies. Verification of associations reveals literature coverage rates of 89%-91% for disease-drug and disease-gene pairs, while symptom-related associations exhibit lower coverage (49%-62%).