ArticleJoint diseases and related surgery2025
Assessing the performance of ChatGPT-4o on the Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Board Examination.
Article in Joint diseases and related surgery, 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.
- Assessment of large language models in musculoskeletal radiological anatomy: A comparative study with radiologists.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence fails to outperform orthopaedic surgeons: A systematic review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence algorithms in orthopaedics: A narrative review of methods and clinical applications.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to assess the overall performance of ChatGPT version 4-omni (GPT-4o) on the Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Board Examination (TOTBE) using actual examinees as a reference point to evaluate and compare the performance of GPT-4o with that of human participants. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this study, GPT-4o was tested with multiple-choice questions that formed the first step of 14 TOTBEs conducted between 2010 and 2023. The assessment of image-based questions was conducted separately for all exams. The questions were classified based on the subspecialties for the five exams (2010-2014). The performance of GPT-4o was assessed and compared to those of actual examinees of the TOTBE.
resultsThe mean total score of GPT-4o was 70.2±5.64 (range, 61 to 84), whereas that of actual examinees was 58±3.28 (range, 53.6 to 64.6). Considering accuracy rates, GPT-4o demonstrated 62% accuracy on image-based questions and 70% accuracy on text-based questions. It also demonstrated superior performance in the field of basic sciences, whereas actual examinees performed better in the specialty of reconstruction. Both GPT-4o and actual examinees exhibited the lowest scores in the subspecialty of lower extremity and foot.
conclusionOur study results showed that GPT-4o performed well on the TOTBE, particularly in basic sciences. While it demonstrated accuracy comparable to actual examinees in some areas, these findings highlight its potential as a helpful tool in medical education.
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.