SynthesisNeurosurgical review2024
The performance of ChatGPT versus neurosurgery residents in neurosurgical board examination-like questions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications, Challenges, and Prospects of Generative Artificial Intelligence Empowering Medical Education: Scoping Review.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Comparative performance of neurosurgery-specific, peer-reviewed versus general AI chatbots in bilingual board examinations: evaluating accuracy, consistency, and error minimization strategies.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT's and Gemini's Ability to Find Studies About Neurosurgical Training and Trainees' Anatomy Understanding.ANZ journal of surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLarge language models and ChatGPT have been used in different fields of medical education. This study aimed to review the literature on the performance of ChatGPT in neurosurgery board examination-like questions compared to neurosurgery residents.
methodsA literature search was performed following PRISMA guidelines, covering the time period of ChatGPT's inception (November 2022) until October 25, 2024. Two reviewers screened for eligible studies, selecting those that used ChatGPT to answer neurosurgery board examination-like questions and compared the results with neurosurgery residents' scores. Risk of bias was assessed using JBI critical appraisal tool. Overall effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were determined using a fixed-effects model with alpha at 0.05.
resultsAfter screening, six studies were selected for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Accuracy of ChatGPT ranged from 50.4 to 78.8%, compared to residents' accuracy of 58.3 to 73.7%. Risk of bias was low in 4 out of 6 studies reviewed; the rest had moderate risk. There was an overall trend favoring neurosurgery residents versus ChatGPT (p < 0.00001), with high heterogeneity (I
conclusionOur meta-analysis showed that neurosurgery residents performed better than ChatGPT in answering neurosurgery board examination-like questions, although reviewed studies had high heterogeneity. Further improvement is necessary before it can become a useful and reliable supplementary tool in the delivery of neurosurgical education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39643792What 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.