Observational studyUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2025
Can ChatGPT pass the Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Board Examination? Turkish orthopedic surgeons versus artificial intelligence.
Observational study in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 2025. 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.
- Humans vs. large language models in neurology board examination: performance, limitations, and reference reliability.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Medical Assessment: Reliability and Performance of Multimodal Large Language Models in a High-Stakes Licensing Examination.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Large language models versus human examinee performance on Israeli anesthesiology board examinations.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence has been shown to achieve successful outcomes in various orthopedic qualification examinations worldwide. This study aims to assess the performance of ChatGPT in the written section of the Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Board Examination, compare its results with those of candidates who took the exam, and determine whether ChatGPT is sufficient to achieve a passing score.
methodsThis retrospective observational study evaluated whether ChatGPT achieved a passing grade on 400 publicly available questions from the Turkish orthopedics qualification exam over the past four years. ChatGPT's performance was compared with the mean scores of the candidates who took the exam.
resultsA total of 627 candidates participated in the four exams included in the study, of whom 292 (46.5%) passed. ChatGPT received higher scores than 619 (98.7%) of the candidates. In all exams conducted between 2020 and 2023, ChatGPT achieved significantly higher scores than the mean exam success rate (p=0.012, p=0.012, p=0.002, p=0.005, respectively). Of the 400 questions analyzed, 36 (9%) included figures.
conclusionThis is the first study to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT in the Turkish orthopedics proficiency exam. Our findings indicate that ChatGPT demonstrated high success in the Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Board Examination (TOTBE) written exam, achieving higher scores than the vast majority of candidates taking the exam (98.7%). ChatGPT performed well in the first part of the proficiency exam, where only theoretical knowledge is assessed. However, the human factor, which synthesizes both theoretical and practical knowledge, remains essential in daily medical practice.
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.