4 ms·

I wonder if it was unable to read your report, and just answered as if role-playing? I gave it a pdf of an engine manual recently and asked some questions, whi

I wonder if it was unable to read your report, and just answered as if role-playing? I gave it a pdf of an engine manual recently and asked some questions, which it answered reasonably. It even pulled a schematic out for me, though it was the wrong one (it gave me a schematic for the CDI ignition variant that we first talked about, rather than the DSAI one we settled on later.)

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
astura 1y ago
>I wonder if it was unable to read your report, and just answered as if role-playing? FWIW, This is what chatgpt gave me when I uploaded a lab report, it read the results back to me: Here’s an interpretation of the blood test results you provided: White Blood Cell Count (WBC) Value: 9.2 (Normal: 3.8 - 10.8 Thousand/uL) Within the normal range, indicating no immediate signs of infection or inflammation. Red Blood Cell Count (RBC) Value: 5.29 (Normal: 3.8 - 5.1 Million/uL) Elevated (High). This could indicate dehydration, stress, or other conditions like polycythemia. Hemoglobin Value: 10.9 (Normal: 11.7 - 15.5 g/dL) Low. Suggests anemia, possibly due to iron deficiency or chronic disease. Hematocrit Value: 36.0% (Normal: 35.0 - 45.0%) Within the normal range, but on the lower side, supporting the presence of mild anemia. Mean Corpuscular Volume (MCV) Value: 68.1 (Normal: 80.0 - 100.0 fL) Low. Indicates microcytic anemia, often due to iron deficiency. Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin (MCH) Value: 20.6 (Normal: 27.0 - 33.0 pg) Low. Suggests hypochromia (paler red blood cells), often associated with iron-deficiency anemia. Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration (MCHC) Value: 30.3 (Normal: 32.0 - 36.0 g/dL) Slightly low. May reflect reduced hemoglobin in red blood cells, consistent with iron-deficiency anemia. Red Cell Distribution Width (RDW) Value: 15.8% (Normal: 11.0 - 15.0%) Elevated. Indicates variability in red blood cell size, common in iron-deficiency anemia. Platelet Count Value: 397 (Normal: 140 - 400 Thousand/uL) Normal, but on the higher side of the range. Other Key Metrics Absolute Neutrophils, Lymphocytes, Monocytes, Eosinophils, Basophils: All within normal ranges, suggesting no significant abnormalities in immune cell populations. Anisocytosis (1+): Indicates variation in red blood cell size. Hypochromasia (1+): Suggests pale red blood cells, supporting iron-deficiency anemia. Summary These results suggest iron-deficiency anemia, characterized by low hemoglobin, low MCV, low MCH, and high RDW. The elevated red blood cell count may reflect compensatory mechanisms or mild dehydration. Your provider recommends a heart-healthy, low-fat diet, which is great for overall health. However, addressing the anemia might also involve increasing dietary iron or taking iron supplements. The diagnosis is wrong, btw, I don't have iron deficiency. The anemia is caused by a genetic condition called thalassemia, which has been verified by genetic tests. You can use the Mentzer Index to differentiate the two on a simple CBC - https://www.mdcalc.com/calc/10534/mentzer-index https://www.mdcalc.com/calc/10534/mentzer-index Mine numbers return a "probable diagnosis." I was wondering if chatgpt would catch it, nope, it didn't. It did say that it was a possibility once I suggested it though.
- nradov 1y ago
  It's also disappointing that the LLM would falsely claim that a low-fat diet is "great for overall health". That claim has been thoroughly debunked in the scientific literature (or at least not supported by evidence-based medicine), and yet the recommendation still keeps popping up. While there are certain specific types of fats that can be problematic, in general a moderate amount of fat is fine as a macronutrient.
  - dekhn 1y ago
    LLMs don't have a magical ability to arbitrate complex truths. If the "low-fat diet" narrative is prominent in the training literature, I would expect the model to say that more often that it said the opposite. I don't ever really use the term "thoroughly debunked" when referring to nutrition science; as you noted, a better term is that the claim is not supported by the evidence. I've seen enough things debunked and then rebunked to know that nutrition science is not really that accurate.
- Gracana 1y ago
  Interesting! Well, that's disappointing.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

astura 1y ago

>I wonder if it was unable to read your report, and just answered as if role-playing? FWIW, This is what chatgpt gave me when I uploaded a lab report, it read the results back to me: Here’s an interpretation of the blood test results you provided: White Blood Cell Count (WBC) Value: 9.2 (Normal: 3.8 - 10.8 Thousand/uL) Within the normal range, indicating no immediate signs of infection or inflammation. Red Blood Cell Count (RBC) Value: 5.29 (Normal: 3.8 - 5.1 Million/uL) Elevated (High). This could indicate dehydration, stress, or other conditions like polycythemia. Hemoglobin Value: 10.9 (Normal: 11.7 - 15.5 g/dL) Low. Suggests anemia, possibly due to iron deficiency or chronic disease. Hematocrit Value: 36.0% (Normal: 35.0 - 45.0%) Within the normal range, but on the lower side, supporting the presence of mild anemia. Mean Corpuscular Volume (MCV) Value: 68.1 (Normal: 80.0 - 100.0 fL) Low. Indicates microcytic anemia, often due to iron deficiency. Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin (MCH) Value: 20.6 (Normal: 27.0 - 33.0 pg) Low. Suggests hypochromia (paler red blood cells), often associated with iron-deficiency anemia. Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration (MCHC) Value: 30.3 (Normal: 32.0 - 36.0 g/dL) Slightly low. May reflect reduced hemoglobin in red blood cells, consistent with iron-deficiency anemia. Red Cell Distribution Width (RDW) Value: 15.8% (Normal: 11.0 - 15.0%) Elevated. Indicates variability in red blood cell size, common in iron-deficiency anemia. Platelet Count Value: 397 (Normal: 140 - 400 Thousand/uL) Normal, but on the higher side of the range. Other Key Metrics Absolute Neutrophils, Lymphocytes, Monocytes, Eosinophils, Basophils: All within normal ranges, suggesting no significant abnormalities in immune cell populations. Anisocytosis (1+): Indicates variation in red blood cell size. Hypochromasia (1+): Suggests pale red blood cells, supporting iron-deficiency anemia. Summary These results suggest iron-deficiency anemia, characterized by low hemoglobin, low MCV, low MCH, and high RDW. The elevated red blood cell count may reflect compensatory mechanisms or mild dehydration. Your provider recommends a heart-healthy, low-fat diet, which is great for overall health. However, addressing the anemia might also involve increasing dietary iron or taking iron supplements. The diagnosis is wrong, btw, I don't have iron deficiency. The anemia is caused by a genetic condition called thalassemia, which has been verified by genetic tests. You can use the Mentzer Index to differentiate the two on a simple CBC - https://www.mdcalc.com/calc/10534/mentzer-index https://www.mdcalc.com/calc/10534/mentzer-index Mine numbers return a "probable diagnosis." I was wondering if chatgpt would catch it, nope, it didn't. It did say that it was a possibility once I suggested it though.

nradov 1y ago
It's also disappointing that the LLM would falsely claim that a low-fat diet is "great for overall health". That claim has been thoroughly debunked in the scientific literature (or at least not supported by evidence-based medicine), and yet the recommendation still keeps popping up. While there are certain specific types of fats that can be problematic, in general a moderate amount of fat is fine as a macronutrient.
- dekhn 1y ago
  LLMs don't have a magical ability to arbitrate complex truths. If the "low-fat diet" narrative is prominent in the training literature, I would expect the model to say that more often that it said the opposite. I don't ever really use the term "thoroughly debunked" when referring to nutrition science; as you noted, a better term is that the claim is not supported by the evidence. I've seen enough things debunked and then rebunked to know that nutrition science is not really that accurate.
Gracana 1y ago
Interesting! Well, that's disappointing.