ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2024
Efficacy of large language models and their potential in Obstetrics and Gynecology education.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 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.
- Artificial intelligence in reproductive medicine and education: current evidence, challenges, and future directions.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- Performance Evaluation of Large Language Models in Multilingual Medical Multiple-Choice Questions: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Measuring large language model uncertainty in women's health using semantic entropy and perplexity: a comparative study.The Lancet. Obstetrics, gynaecology, & women's health · 2025Article
- The PERFORM Study: Artificial Intelligence Versus Human Residents in Cross-Sectional Obstetrics-Gynecology Scenarios Across Languages and Time Constraints.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Article
- Application of ultrasound in combination with other methods in gynecological disease: artificial intelligence, surgery, and drugs.Frontiers in oncology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe performance of large language models (LLMs) and their potential utility in obstetric and gynecological education are topics of ongoing debate. This study aimed to contribute to this discussion by examining the recent advancements in LLM technology and their transformative potential in artificial intelligence.
methodsThis study assessed the performance of generative pre-trained transformer (GPT)-3.5 and -4 in understanding clinical information, as well as its potential implications for obstetric and gynecological education. Obstetrics and gynecology residents at three hospitals underwent an annual promotional examination, from which 116 of the 170 questions over 4 years (2020-2023) were analyzed, excluding 54 questions with images. The scores achieved by GPT-3.5, -4, and the 100 residents were compared.
resultsThe average scores across all 4 years for GPT-3.5 and -4 were 38.79 (standard deviation [SD], 5.65) and 79.31 (SD, 3.67), respectively. For groups first-year resident, second-year resident, and third-year resident, the cumulative annual average scores were 79.12 (SD, 9.00), 80.95 (SD, 5.86), and 83.60 (SD, 6.82), respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed between the scores of GPT-4.0 and those of the residents. When analyzing questions specific to obstetrics, the average scores for GPT-3.5 and -4.0 were 33.44 (SD, 10.18) and 90.22 (SD, 7.68), respectively.
conclusionGPT-4 demonstrated exceptional performance in obstetrics, different types of data interpretation, and problem solving, showcasing the potential utility of LLMs in these areas. However, acknowledging the constraints of LLMs is crucial and their utilization should augment human expertise and discernment.
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.