ArticleCureus2024
Large Language Models Take on Cardiothoracic Surgery: A Comparative Analysis of the Performance of Four Models on American Board of Thoracic Surgery Exam Questions in 2023.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Large Language Models in Lung Cancer: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled 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 Seven Large Language Models on Anatomy Examination Questions.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of large language models in cardiovascular surgery: a comparative study of board-level clinical question answering and generation.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language models using the Type 2 Diabetes Health Education guideline: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT-4.1, Claude-4.0, DeepSeek-V3, and ERNIE Bot 4.5 Turbo.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Large Language Models in Critical Care Medicine: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- ChatGPT-3.5 and the Polish thoracic surgery specialty examination: a performance evaluation.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Postoperative complication management: How do large language models measure up to human expertise?PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- A comparative analysis of DeepSeek R1, DeepSeek-R1-Lite, OpenAi o1 Pro, and Grok 3 performance on ophthalmology board-style questions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Large language models versus traditional textbooks: optimizing learning for plastic surgery case preparation.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- A bibliometric analysis of large language model-based AI chatbots in surgery.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Preparing for Vascular Surgery Board Certification: A Comparative Study Using Large Language Models.Cureus · 2025Article
- Large Language Models' Responses to Spinal Cord Injury: A Comparative Study of Performance.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives Large language models (LLMs), for example, ChatGPT, have performed exceptionally well in various fields. Of note, their success in answering postgraduate medical examination questions has been previously reported, indicating their possible utility in surgical education and training. This study evaluated the performance of four different LLMs on the American Board of Thoracic Surgery's (ABTS) Self-Education and Self-Assessment in Thoracic Surgery (SESATS) XIII question bank to investigate the potential applications of these LLMs in the education and training of future surgeons. Methods The dataset in this study comprised 400 best-of-four questions from the SESATS XIII exam. This included 220 adult cardiac surgery questions, 140 general thoracic surgery questions, 20 congenital cardiac surgery questions, and 20 cardiothoracic critical care questions. The GPT-3.5 (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA) and GPT-4 (OpenAI) models were evaluated, as well as Med-PaLM 2 (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA) and Claude 2 (Anthropic Inc., San Francisco, CA), and their respective performances were compared. The subspecialties included were adult cardiac, general thoracic, congenital cardiac, and critical care. Questions requiring visual information, such as clinical images or radiology, were excluded. Results GPT-4 demonstrated a significant improvement over GPT-3.5 overall (87.0% vs. 51.8% of questions answered correctly, p < 0.0001). GPT-4 also exhibited consistently improved performance across all subspecialties, with accuracy rates ranging from 70.0% to 90.0%, compared to 35.0% to 60.0% for GPT-3.5. When using the GPT-4 model, ChatGPT performed significantly better on the adult cardiac and general thoracic subspecialties (p < 0.0001). Conclusions Large language models, such as ChatGPT with the GPT-4 model, demonstrate impressive skill in understanding complex cardiothoracic surgical clinical information, achieving an overall accuracy rate of nearly 90.0% on the SESATS question bank. Our study shows significant improvement between successive GPT iterations. As LLM technology continues to evolve, its potential use in surgical education, training, and continuous medical education is anticipated to enhance patient outcomes and safety in the future.
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.