ArticleSurgery2024
Evaluating capabilities of large language models: Performance of GPT-4 on surgical knowledge assessments.
Article in Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Potential and Accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 in Medical Licensing and In-Training Examinations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR medical education · 2025Pooled it
- The Accuracy and Capability of Artificial Intelligence Solutions in Health Care Examinations and Certificates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence and ChatGPT in Abdominopelvic Surgery: A Systematic Review of Applications and Impact.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Pooled it
- A large language model for complex cardiology care.Nature medicine · 2026Trial
- Performance of Seven Large Language Models on Anatomy Examination Questions.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Embodied artificial intelligence in robotic orthopaedic surgery: from intelligent assistance to adaptive surgical autonomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Performance of GPT-4o and Claude in Medical Ethics Scenarios: Comparative Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Large Language Model Hallucinations in Spine Surgery: A Comparative Analysis of Clinician vs Patient-Level Prompts.Neurosurgery practice · 2026Article
- DILIConsult: A Multi-Agent Large Language Model Framework for Evaluating Drug-Induced Liver Injury in ICU Settings.Pharmacotherapy · 2026Article
- Machine learning for chemotherapy decision-making in breast cancer using large language model.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- From risk classification to clinical action: a prespecified paired pilot benchmark of public large language model interfaces for diabetes-related foot ulcer prevention.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Performance of large language models on the radiation and cancer biology practice exam.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Is It Getting Better? An Evaluation of Two Successive Generations of ChatGPT in Answering Specialized Vascular Surgery Questions.Vascular specialist international · 2025Article
- Evaluation of prostate cancer pathology reports generated by ChatGPT to enhance patient comprehension.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- RTPhy-ChatBot: A RAG-Based intelligent assistant for radiotherapy physics using LLaMA3 and AAPM reports.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Impact of prompting on large language model performance: ChatGPT-4 performance on the 2023 hand surgery self-assessment examination.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Article
- Postoperative complication management: How do large language models measure up to human expertise?PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Large Language Models in Medical Diagnostics: Scoping Review With Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- How appropriately can generative artificial intelligence platforms, including GPT-4, Gemini, Bing, and Wrtn, answer questions about colon cancer in the Korean language?Annals of coloproctology · 2025Article
- Comparing Artificial Intelligence-Generated and Clinician-Created Personalized Self-Management Guidance for Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: Blinded Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence has the potential to dramatically alter health care by enhancing how we diagnose and treat disease. One promising artificial intelligence model is ChatGPT, a general-purpose large language model trained by OpenAI. ChatGPT has shown human-level performance on several professional and academic benchmarks. We sought to evaluate its performance on surgical knowledge questions and assess the stability of this performance on repeat queries.
methodsWe evaluated the performance of ChatGPT-4 on questions from the Surgical Council on Resident Education question bank and a second commonly used surgical knowledge assessment, referred to as Data-B. Questions were entered in 2 formats: open-ended and multiple-choice. ChatGPT outputs were assessed for accuracy and insights by surgeon evaluators. We categorized reasons for model errors and the stability of performance on repeat queries.
resultsA total of 167 Surgical Council on Resident Education and 112 Data-B questions were presented to the ChatGPT interface. ChatGPT correctly answered 71.3% and 67.9% of multiple choice and 47.9% and 66.1% of open-ended questions for Surgical Council on Resident Education and Data-B, respectively. For both open-ended and multiple-choice questions, approximately two-thirds of ChatGPT responses contained nonobvious insights. Common reasons for incorrect responses included inaccurate information in a complex question (n = 16, 36.4%), inaccurate information in a 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 questions answered incorrectly on the first query; the response accuracy changed for 6/16 (37.5%) questions.
conclusionConsistent with findings in other academic and professional domains, we demonstrate near or above human-level performance of ChatGPT on surgical knowledge questions from 2 widely used question banks. ChatGPT performed better on multiple-choice than open-ended questions, prompting questions regarding its potential for clinical application. Unique to this study, we demonstrate inconsistency in ChatGPT responses on repeat queries. This finding warrants future consideration including efforts at training large language models to provide the safe and consistent responses required for clinical application. Despite near or above human-level performance on question banks and given these observations, it is unclear whether large language models such as ChatGPT are 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.