OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of ChatGPT 4 (GPT-4) in delivering genetic information about BRCA1, HFE, and MLH1, building on previous findings with ChatGPT 3.5 (GPT-3.5). To focus on assessing the utility, limitations, and ethical implications of using ChatGPT in medical settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A structured survey was developed to assess GPT-4's clinical value. An expert panel of genetic counselors and clinical geneticists evaluated GPT-4's responses to these questions. We also performed comparative analysis with GPT-3.5, utilizing descriptive statistics and using Prism 9 for data analysis. RESULTS: The findings indicate improved accuracy in GPT-4 over GPT-3.5 (P < .0001). However, notable errors in accuracy remained. The relevance of responses varied in GPT-4, but was generally favorable, with a mean in the "somewhat agree" range. There was no difference in performance by disease category. The 7-question subset of the Bot Usability Scale (BUS-15) showed no statistically significant difference between the groups but trended lower in the GPT-4 version. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The study underscores GPT-4's potential role in genetic education, showing notable progress yet facing challenges like outdated information and the necessity of ongoing refinement. Our results, while showing promise, emphasizes the importance of balancing technological innovation with ethical responsibility in healthcare information delivery.

OBJECTIVE: Given the importance AI in genomics and its potential impact on human health, the American Medical Informatics Association-Genomics and Translational Biomedical Informatics (GenTBI) Workgroup developed this assessment of factors that can further enable the clinical application of AI in this space. PROCESS: A list of relevant factors was developed through GenTBI workgroup discussions in multiple in-person and online meetings, along with review of pertinent publications. This list was then summarized and reviewed to achieve consensus among the group members. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial informatics research and development are needed to fully realize the clinical potential of such technologies. The development of larger datasets is crucial to emulating the success AI is achieving in other domains. It is important that AI methods do not exacerbate existing socio-economic, racial, and ethnic disparities. Genomic data standards are critical to effectively scale such technologies across institutions. With so much uncertainty, complexity and novelty in genomics and medicine, and with an evolving regulatory environment, the current focus should be on using these technologies in an interface with clinicians that emphasizes the value each brings to clinical decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze a publicly available sample of rule-based phenotype definitions to characterize and evaluate the variability of logical constructs used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of 33 preexisting phenotype definitions used in research that are represented using Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources and Clinical Quality Language (CQL) was analyzed using automated analysis of the computable representation of the CQL libraries. RESULTS: Most of the phenotype definitions include narrative descriptions and flowcharts, while few provide pseudocode or executable artifacts. Most use 4 or fewer medical terminologies. The number of codes used ranges from 5 to 6865, and value sets from 1 to 19. We found that the most common expressions used were literal, data, and logical expressions. Aggregate and arithmetic expressions are the least common. Expression depth ranges from 4 to 27. DISCUSSION: Despite the range of conditions, we found that all of the phenotype definitions consisted of logical criteria, representing both clinical and operational logic, and tabular data, consisting of codes from standard terminologies and keywords for natural language processing. The total number and variety of expressions are low, which may be to simplify implementation, or authors may limit complexity due to data availability constraints. CONCLUSIONS: The phenotype definitions analyzed show significant variation in specific logical, arithmetic, and other operators but are all composed of the same high-level components, namely tabular data and logical expressions. A standard representation for phenotype definitions should support these formats and be modular to support localization and shared logic.

OBJECTIVE: The Genomic Medicine Working Group of the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research virtually hosted its 13th genomic medicine meeting titled "Developing a Clinical Genomic Informatics Research Agenda". The meeting's goal was to articulate a research strategy to develop Genomics-based Clinical Informatics Tools and Resources (GCIT) to improve the detection, treatment, and reporting of genetic disorders in clinical settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Experts from government agencies, the private sector, and academia in genomic medicine and clinical informatics were invited to address the meeting's goals. Invitees were also asked to complete a survey to assess important considerations needed to develop a genomic-based clinical informatics research strategy. RESULTS: Outcomes from the meeting included identifying short-term research needs, such as designing and implementing standards-based interfaces between laboratory information systems and electronic health records, as well as long-term projects, such as identifying and addressing barriers related to the establishment and implementation of genomic data exchange systems that, in turn, the research community could help address. DISCUSSION: Discussions centered on identifying gaps and barriers that impede the use of GCIT in genomic medicine. Emergent themes from the meeting included developing an implementation science framework, defining a value proposition for all stakeholders, fostering engagement with patients and partners to develop applications under patient control, promoting the use of relevant clinical workflows in research, and lowering related barriers to regulatory processes. Another key theme was recognizing pervasive biases in data and information systems, algorithms, access, value, and knowledge repositories and identifying ways to resolve them.