ArticlePloS one2024
Is ChatGPT 3.5 smarter than Otolaryngology trainees? A comparison study of board style exam questions.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the approaches of different specialties and artificial intelligence systems on traumatic dental injuries.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- ChatGPT Versus DeepSeek: Assessing Artificial Intelligence Performance on Radiation Oncology Examination Questions.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Mapping applications and evaluations of LLM-enabled AI chatbots for health purposes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Models for Dysphonia Patient Education.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Applications of Natural Language Processing in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review.The Laryngoscope · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study compares the performance of the artificial intelligence (AI) platform Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) to Otolaryngology trainees on board-style exam questions.
methodsWe administered a set of 30 Otolaryngology board-style questions to medical students (MS) and Otolaryngology residents (OR). 31 MSs and 17 ORs completed the questionnaire. The same test was administered to ChatGPT version 3.5, five times. Comparisons of performance were achieved using a one-way ANOVA with Tukey Post Hoc test, along with a regression analysis to explore the relationship between education level and performance.
resultsThe average scores increased each year from MS1 to PGY5. A one-way ANOVA revealed that ChatGPT outperformed trainee years MS1, MS2, and MS3 (p = <0.001, 0.003, and 0.019, respectively). PGY4 and PGY5 otolaryngology residents outperformed ChatGPT (p = 0.033 and 0.002, respectively). For years MS4, PGY1, PGY2, and PGY3 there was no statistical difference between trainee scores and ChatGPT (p = .104, .996, and 1.000, respectively).
conclusionChatGPT can outperform lower-level medical trainees on Otolaryngology board-style exam but still lacks the ability to outperform higher-level trainees. These questions primarily test rote memorization of medical facts; in contrast, the art of practicing medicine is predicated on the synthesis of complex presentations of disease and multilayered application of knowledge of the healing process. Given that upper-level trainees outperform ChatGPT, it is unlikely that ChatGPT, in its current form will provide significant clinical utility over an Otolaryngologist.
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.