ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2025
Can Artificial Intelligence be Successful as an Anaesthesiology and Reanimation Resident?
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Models: Editorial Reflections.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2025Article
- Comment on "Can Artificial Intelligence Be Successful as an Anaesthesiology and Reanimation Resident?"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to compare the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot ChatGPT with anaesthesiology and reanimation residents at a major hospital in an exam modelled after the European Diploma in Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Part I. Methods: The annual training exam for residents was administered electronically. One day prior to this, the same questions were posed to an AI language model. During the analysis, the residents were divided into two groups based on their training duration (less than 24 months: Group J; 24 months or more: Group S). Two books and four guides were used as references in the preparation of a 100-question multiple-choice exam, with each correct answer awarded one point. Results: The median exam score among all participants was 70 [interquartile range (IQR) 67-73] out of 100. ChatGPT correctly answered 71 questions. Group J had a median exam score of 67 (IQR 65.25-69), while Group S scored 73 (IQR 70-75) ( Conclusion: ChatGPT exhibited a performance comparable to that of a resident in an exam centred on anaesthesiology and critical care. We suggest that by tailoring an AI model like ChatGPT in anaesthesiology and resuscitation, exam performance could be enhanced, paving the way for its development as a valuable 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.