ArticleCureus2024
Advancing Medical Education: Performance of Generative Artificial Intelligence Models on Otolaryngology Board Preparation Questions With Image Analysis Insights.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Applications of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence in Otolaryngology: A State-of-the-Art Review.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Review
- Benchmarking next-generation large language models in otorhinolaryngology: a prospective, guideline-anchored, blinded evaluation of ChatGPT-5, Gemini-3, Grok-2, Llama-4, and DeepSeek-4 across case scenarios.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- 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
- Evaluating the Accuracy, Reliability, Consistency, and Readability of Different Large Language Models in Restorative Dentistry.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025Article
- Response to: comparative performance of artificial intelligence models in rheumatology board-level questions: evaluating Google Gemini and ChatGPT-4o: correspondence.Clinical rheumatology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective To evaluate and compare the performance of Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), GPT-4, and Google Bard on United States otolaryngology board-style questions to scale their ability to act as an adjunctive study tool and resource for students and doctors. Methods A 1077 text question and 60 image-based questions from the otolaryngology board exam preparation tool BoardVitals were inputted into ChatGPT, GPT-4, and Google Bard. The questions were scaled true or false, depending on whether the artificial intelligence (AI) modality provided the correct response. Data analysis was performed in R Studio. Results GPT-4 scored the highest at 78.7% compared to ChatGPT and Bard at 55.3% and 61.7% (p<0.001), respectively. In terms of question difficulty, all three AI models performed best on easy questions (ChatGPT: 69.7%, GPT-4: 92.5%, and Bard: 76.4%) and worst on hard questions (ChatGPT: 42.3%, GPT-4: 61.3%, and Bard: 45.6%). Across all difficulty levels, GPT-4 did better than Bard and ChatGPT (p<0.0001). GPT-4 outperformed ChatGPT and Bard in all subspecialty sections, with significantly higher scores (p<0.05) on all sections except allergy (p>0.05). On image-based questions, GPT-4 performed better than Bard (56.7% vs 46.4%, p=0.368) and had better overall image interpretation capabilities. Conclusion This study showed that the GPT-4 model performed better than both ChatGPT and Bard on the United States otolaryngology board practice questions. Although the GPT-4 results were promising, AI should still be used with caution when being implemented in medical education or patient care settings.
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.