Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38098921›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

Stratified Evaluation of GPT's Question Answering in Surgery Reveals Artificial Intelligence (AI) Knowledge Gaps.

Rebecca Murphy Lonergan, Jake Curry, Kallpana Dhas, Benno I Simmons

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rebecca Murphy LonerganDepartment of Medical Education, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, GBR.
Jake CurryCentre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn, GBR.
Kallpana DhasDepartment of Medical Education, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, GBR.
Benno I SimmonsCentre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligence in medicineartificial intelligence in surgerychatgptlarge language modelssurgery

Identifiers

PMID38098921
PMCPMC10720372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.