ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2024
Comparative performance of artificial ıntelligence models in physical medicine and rehabilitation board-level questions.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of Large Language Models When Answering Clinical Research Questions: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Performance of 5 AI Models on United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Questions: Comparative Observational Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Evaluating the role of ChatGPT in rehabilitation medicine: a narrative review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
OBJECTİVES: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of artificial intelligence models ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Google Bard in answering Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation board-style questions, assessing their capabilities in medical education and potential clinical applications.
methodsA comparative cross-sectional study was conducted using the PMR100, an example question set for the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Part I exam, focusing on artificial intelligence models' ability to answer and categorize questions by difficulty. The study evaluated the artificial intelligence models and analyzed them for accuracy, reliability, and alignment with difficulty levels determined by physiatrists.
resultsChatGPT-4 led with a 74% success rate, followed by Bard at 66%, and ChatGPT-3.5 at 63.8%. Bard showed remarkable answer consistency, altering responses in only 1% of cases. The difficulty assessment by ChatGPT models closely matched that of physiatrists. The study highlighted nuanced differences in artificial intelligence models' performance across various Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation subfields.
conclusionThe study illustrates the potential of artificial intelligence in medical education and clinical settings, with ChatGPT-4 showing a slight edge in performance. It emphasizes the importance of artificial intelligence as a supportive tool for physiatrists, despite the need for careful oversight of artificial intelligence-generated responses to ensure patient safety.
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.