ArticleCureus2025
Preparing for Vascular Surgery Board Certification: A Comparative Study Using Large Language Models.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and aim Large language models (LLMs) are transforming medical education by offering innovative methods to enhance teaching and learning. Despite their demonstrated potential, research on its use in vascular surgery is limited. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of LLM in preparing for vascular surgery board certification exams, exploring their potential as educational supplements. Methods We selected 269 text-only multiple-choice questions of 642 from the Vascular Education and Self-Assessment Program (VESAP) version 6. We excluded 143 image-based questions. One independent reviewer input questions into the following four AI tools: ChatGPT 3.5 (San Francisco, CA: OpenAI), Google Gemini (London, UK: Google DeepMind), Microsoft Bing (Redmond, WA: Microsoft), and Claude 3.5 (San Francisco, CA: Anthropic Inc.). Each question with answer choices was entered into an incognito window of the AI tools without any context. A chi-square test was used to assess if the percentage of correct answers varied by question difficulty and discipline, with a significance level of p<0.05. Data analysis was conducted using Stata 18.5 (StataCorp LLC: College Station, TX). Results Claude 3.5 achieved the highest overall accuracy with 65.7% correct responses, outperforming Google Gemini (55.3%), ChatGPT (55.0%), and Microsoft Bing (53.9%). While ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Microsoft Bing did not show significant accuracy variations by discipline (p=0.548, p=0.145, and p=0.797, respectively), Claude 3.5 demonstrated significant performance differences across disciplines (p=0.001), mastering lower extremity (86%), dialysis access (80%), cerebrovascular (77%), venous lymph (70%), and vascular medicine (68.9%). Conclusion Claude 3.5 outperformed other LLMs in solving Vascular Surgery Qualifying Examination version 6 (VSQE6) questions and shows promise as a supplementary tool in vascular surgery education. LLMs are well-versed in the topics of lower extremity vascular issues, dialysis access, and cerebrovascular conditions. At this time, current LLM capabilities do not fully meet the evolving needs of vascular surgery education. While traditional methods remain essential for vascular surgery, updated models of LLMs may provide more substantial benefits in the future.
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.