ArticleCureus2023
Stratified Evaluation of GPT's Question Answering in Surgery Reveals Artificial Intelligence (AI) Knowledge Gaps.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models for predicting one-year major adverse cardiovascular events in acute coronary syndrome.iScience · 2026Article
- Augmenting Large Language Models With National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines for Improved and Standardized Adjuvant Therapy Recommendations in Postoperative Breast Cancer Cases.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Applications, Challenges, and Prospects of Generative Artificial Intelligence Empowering Medical Education: Scoping Review.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Applications of Natural Language Processing in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Letter to the Editor concerning "AI versus the spinal surgeons in the management of controversial spinal surgery scenarios" by Mehmet, S. et al. (Eur spine J [2025]: doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-08825-w).European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025Article
- Employing large language models safely and effectively as a practicing neurosurgeon.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Review
- Semantic Clinical Artificial Intelligence vs Native Large Language Model Performance on the USMLE.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Benchmarking LLM chatbots' oncological knowledge with the Turkish Society of Medical Oncology's annual board examination questions.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Adoption and perception of LLM-based chatbots in health care: an exploratory cross-sectional survey of individuals with rheumatic diseases.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2025Article
- A Transformer-Based Pipeline for German Clinical Document De-Identification.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Challenge, integration, and change: ChatGPT and future anatomical education.Medical education online · 2024Article
- Qualitative metrics from the biomedical literature for evaluating large language models in clinical decision-making: a narrative review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Review
- Comparison of NLP machine learning models with human physicians for ASA Physical Status classification.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have broad potential applications in medicine, such as aiding with education, providing reassurance to patients, and supporting clinical decision-making. However, there is a notable gap in understanding their applicability and performance in the surgical domain and how their performance varies across specialties. This paper aims to evaluate the performance of LLMs in answering surgical questions relevant to clinical practice and to assess how this performance varies across different surgical specialties. We used the MedMCQA dataset, a large-scale multi-choice question-answer (MCQA) dataset consisting of clinical questions across all areas of medicine. We extracted the relevant 23,035 surgical questions and submitted them to the popular LLMs Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT)-3.5 and GPT-4 (OpenAI OpCo, LLC, San Francisco, CA). Generative Pre-trained Transformer is a large language model that can generate human-like text by predicting subsequent words in a sentence based on the context of the words that come before it. It is pre-trained on a diverse range of texts and can perform a variety of tasks, such as answering questions, without needing task-specific training. The question-answering accuracy of GPT was calculated and compared between the two models and across surgical specialties. Both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 achieved accuracies of 53.3% and 64.4%, respectively, on surgical questions, showing a statistically significant difference in performance. When compared to their performance on the full MedMCQA dataset, the two models performed differently: GPT-4 performed worse on surgical questions than on the dataset as a whole, while GPT-3.5 showed the opposite pattern. Significant variations in accuracy were also observed across different surgical specialties, with strong performances in anatomy, vascular, and paediatric surgery and worse performances in orthopaedics, ENT, and neurosurgery. Large language models exhibit promising capabilities in addressing surgical questions, although the variability in their performance between specialties cannot be ignored. The lower performance of the latest GPT-4 model on surgical questions relative to questions across all medicine highlights the need for targeted improvements and continuous updates to ensure relevance and accuracy in surgical applications. Further research and continuous monitoring of LLM performance in surgical domains are crucial to fully harnessing their potential and mitigating the risks of misinformation.
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.