Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39355902›Full record

ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2024

Efficacy of large language models and their potential in Obstetrics and Gynecology education.

Kyung Jin Eoh, Gu Yeun Kwon, Eun Jin Lee, JoonHo Lee, Inha Lee, Young Tae Kim, Eun Ji Nam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

7 authors.

Kyung Jin EohDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin, Korea.
Gu Yeun KwonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Women's Medical Life Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Eun Jin LeeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Women's Medical Life Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
JoonHo LeeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Women's Medical Life Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Inha LeeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Young Tae KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Women's Medical Life Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Eun Ji NamDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Women's Medical Life Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligenceGynecologyMedical educationObstetrics

Identifiers

PMID39355902
PMCPMC11581811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.