Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38321995›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2024

Artificial Intelligence: Ready To Pass the European Board Examinations in Urology?

Benoît Mesnard, Aurélie Schirmann, Julien Branchereau, Ophélie Perrot, Guy Bogaert, Yann Neuzillet, Thierry Lebret, François-Xavier Madec

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Is ChatGPT ready for primetime? Performance of artificial intelligence on a simulated Canadian urology board exam.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Benoît MesnardUrology Department, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France.
Aurélie SchirmannUrology Department, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France.
Julien BranchereauUrology Department, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France.
Ophélie PerrotUrology Department, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France.
Guy BogaertUrology Department, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Yann NeuzilletUrology Department, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France.
Thierry LebretUrology Department, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France.
François-Xavier MadecUrology Department, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role of artificial intelligence (AI) in the medical domain is increasing on an annual basis. AI allows instant access to the latest scientific data in urological surgery, facilitating a level of theoretical knowledge that previously required several years of practice and training. To evaluate the capability of AI to provide robust data in a specialized domain, we submitted the in-service assessment of the European Board of Urology to three different AI tools: ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, and Bard. The assessment consists of 100 single-answer questions with four multiple-choice options. We compared the responses of 736 participants to the AI responses. The average score for the 736 participants was 67.20. ChatGPT 3.5 scored 59 points, ranking in 570th place. ChatGPT 4.0 scored 80 points, ranking 80th, just on the border of the top 10%. Google Bard scored 68 points, ranking 340th. Our study demonstrates that AI systems have the capability to participate in a urological examination and achieve satisfactory results. However, a critical perspective must be maintained, as current AI systems are not infallible. Finally, the role of AI in the acquisition of knowledge and the dissemination of information remains to be delineated. Patient summary: We submitted questions from the European Diploma in Urological Surgery to three artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Our findings reveal that AI tools show remarkable performance in assessments of urological surgical knowledge. However, certain limitations were also observed.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceClinical reasoningUrologyUrology degree

Identifiers

PMID38321995
PMCPMC10845241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.