ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2024
Artificial Intelligence, the ChatGPT Large Language Model: Assessing the Accuracy of Responses to the Gynaecological Endoscopic Surgical Education and Assessment (GESEA) Level 1-2 knowledge tests.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 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.
- Artificial intelligence in obstetrics and gynecology: Evaluating ChatGPT and Google Gemini in answering patient questions.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Assessing the Accuracy of Large Language Models on European Guidelines for Cervical Cancer: An In Silico Benchmarking Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In 2022, OpenAI launched ChatGPT 3.5, which is now widely used in medical education, training, and research. Despite its valuable use for the generation of information, concerns persist about its authenticity and accuracy. Its undisclosed information source and outdated dataset pose risks of misinformation. Although it is widely used, AI-generated text inaccuracies raise doubts about its reliability. The ethical use of such technologies is crucial to uphold scientific accuracy in research. Objective: This study aimed to assess the accuracy of ChatGPT in doing GESEA tests 1 and 2. Materials and Methods: The 100 multiple-choice theoretical questions from GESEA certifications 1 and 2 were presented to ChatGPT, requesting the selection of the correct answer along with an explanation. Expert gynaecologists evaluated and graded the explanations for accuracy. Main outcome measures: ChatGPT showed a 59% accuracy in responses, with 64% providing comprehensive explanations. It performed better in GESEA Level 1 (64% accuracy) than in GESEA Level 2 (54% accuracy) questions. Conclusions: ChatGPT is a versatile tool in medicine and research, offering knowledge, information, and promoting evidence-based practice. Despite its widespread use, its accuracy has not been validated yet. This study found a 59% correct response rate, highlighting the need for accuracy validation and ethical use considerations. Future research should investigate ChatGPT's truthfulness in subspecialty fields such as gynaecologic oncology and compare different versions of chatbot for continuous improvement. What is new?: Artificial intelligence (AI) has a great potential in scientific research. However, the validity of outputs remains unverified. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of responses generated by ChatGPT to enhance the critical use of this tool.
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.