ArticleTurkish archives of otorhinolaryngology2024
Evaluating the Performance of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Bing Compared with Resident Surgeons in the Otorhinolaryngology In-service Training Examination.
Article in Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in otolaryngology: current applications, limitations, and future perspectives.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence performance in the emergency medicine subspecialty examination conducted in Türkiye.Medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical Applications of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence in Otolaryngology: A State-of-the-Art Review.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Review
- Guideline-based benchmarking of large language models in otorhinolaryngology using 250 real-world cases.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- ChatGPT Versus DeepSeek: Assessing Artificial Intelligence Performance on Radiation Oncology Examination Questions.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Large language models as information providers for appropriate antimicrobial use: computational text analysis and expert-rated comparison of ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- Comparative study of technical and patient-related question answering quality of DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT-4o in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- AI in clinical decision-making: ChatGPT-4 vs. Llama2 for otolaryngology cases.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Integration of Large Language Models as an Adjunct Tool in Healthcare.Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Large language models (LLMs) are used in various fields for their ability to produce human-like text. They are particularly useful in medical education, aiding clinical management skills and exam preparation for residents. To evaluate and compare the performance of ChatGPT (GPT-4), Gemini, and Bing with each other and with otorhinolaryngology residents in answering in-service training exam questions and provide insights into the usefulness of these models in medical education and healthcare. Methods: Eight otorhinolaryngology in-service training exams were used for comparison. 316 questions were prepared from the Resident Training Textbook of the Turkish Society of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery. These questions were presented to the three artificial intelligence models. The exam results were evaluated to determine the accuracy of both models and residents. Results: GPT-4 achieved the highest accuracy among the LLMs at 54.75% (GPT-4 vs. Gemini p=0.002, GPT-4 vs. Bing p<0.001), followed by Gemini at 40.50% and Bing at 37.00% (Gemini vs. Bing p=0.327). However, senior residents outperformed all LLMs and other residents with an accuracy rate of 75.5% (p<0.001). The LLMs could only compete with junior residents. GPT- 4 and Gemini performed similarly to juniors, whose accuracy level was 46.90% (p=0.058 and p=0.120, respectively). However, juniors still outperformed Bing (p=0.019). Conclusion: The LLMs currently have limitations in achieving the same medical accuracy as senior and mid-level residents. However, they outperform in specific subspecialties, indicating the potential usefulness in certain medical fields.
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.