Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39171020›Full record

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.

Zain Khalpey, Ujjawal Kumar, Nicholas King, Alyssa Abraham, Amina H Khalpey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Large Language Models in Lung Cancer: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. ChatGPT-3.5 and the Polish thoracic surgery specialty examination: a performance evaluation.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

Zain KhalpeyKhalpey AI Lab, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, HonorHealth, Scottsdale, USA.
Ujjawal KumarKhalpey AI Lab, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, HonorHealth, Scottsdale, USA.
Nicholas KingDepartment of Research, DataKinetic, Austin, USA.
Alyssa AbrahamKhalpey AI Lab, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, HonorHealth, Scottsdale, USA.
Amina H KhalpeyDepartment of Research, GlobalHealth AI LLC, Scottsdale, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

american board of thoracic surgeryartificial intelligenceboard examscardiothoracic surgical educationchatgptclaude 2large language modelsmed-palm 2sesats

Identifiers

PMID39171020
PMCPMC11337141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.