ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023
Evaluating Capabilities of Large Language Models: Performance of GPT4 on Surgical Knowledge Assessments.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to dramatically alter healthcare by enhancing how we diagnosis and treat disease. One promising AI model is ChatGPT, a large general-purpose language model trained by OpenAI. The chat interface has shown robust, human-level performance on several professional and academic benchmarks. We sought to probe its performance and stability over time on surgical case questions. Methods: We evaluated the performance of ChatGPT-4 on two surgical knowledge assessments: the Surgical Council on Resident Education (SCORE) and a second commonly used knowledge assessment, referred to as Data-B. Questions were entered in two formats: open-ended and multiple choice. ChatGPT output were assessed for accuracy and insights by surgeon evaluators. We categorized reasons for model errors and the stability of performance on repeat encounters. Results: A total of 167 SCORE and 112 Data-B questions were presented to the ChatGPT interface. ChatGPT correctly answered 71% and 68% of multiple-choice SCORE and Data-B questions, respectively. For both open-ended and multiple-choice questions, approximately two-thirds of ChatGPT responses contained non-obvious insights. Common reasons for inaccurate responses included: inaccurate information in a complex question (n=16, 36.4%); inaccurate information in fact-based question (n=11, 25.0%); and accurate information with circumstantial discrepancy (n=6, 13.6%). Upon repeat query, the answer selected by ChatGPT varied for 36.4% of inaccurate questions; the response accuracy changed for 6/16 questions. Conclusion: Consistent with prior findings, we demonstrate robust near or above human-level performance of ChatGPT within the surgical domain. Unique to this study, we demonstrate a substantial inconsistency in ChatGPT responses with repeat query. This finding warrants future consideration and presents an opportunity to further train these models to provide safe and consistent responses. Without mental and/or conceptual models, it is unclear whether language models such as ChatGPT would be able to safely assist clinicians in providing care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.