ArticleSisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni2025
Performance of AI Models vs. Orthopedic Residents in Turkish Specialty Training Development Exams in Orthopedics.
Article in Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comment on "Performance of AI Models vs. Orthopedic Residents in Turkish Specialty Training Development Exams in Orthopedics".Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to advance, its integration into medical education and clinical decision making has attracted considerable attention. Large language models, such as ChatGPT-4o, Gemini, Bing AI, and DeepSeek, have demonstrated potential in supporting healthcare professionals, particularly in specialty training examinations. However, the extent to which these models can independently match or surpass human performance in specialized medical assessments remains uncertain. This study aimed to systematically compare the performance of these AI models with orthopedic residents in the Specialty Training Development Exams (UEGS) conducted between 2010 and 2021, focusing on their accuracy, depth of explanation, and clinical applicability. Methods: This retrospective comparative study involved presenting the UEGS questions to ChatGPT-4o, Gemini, Bing AI, and DeepSeek. Orthopedic residents who took the exams during 2010-2021 served as the control group. The responses were evaluated for accuracy, explanatory details, and clinical applicability. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS Version 27, with one-way ANOVA and post-hoc tests for performance comparison. Results: All AI models outperformed orthopedic residents in terms of accuracy. Bing AI demonstrated the highest accuracy rates (64.0% to 93.0%), followed by Gemini (66.0% to 87.0%) and DeepSeek (63.5% to 81.0%). ChatGPT-4o showed the lowest accuracy among AI models (51.0% to 59.5%). Orthopedic residents consistently had the lowest accuracy (43.95% to 53.45%). Bing AI, Gemini, and DeepSeek showed knowledge levels equivalent to over 5 years of medical experience, while ChatGPT-4o ranged from to 2-5 years. Conclusion: This study showed that AI models, especially Bing AI and Gemini, perform at a high level in orthopedic specialty examinations and have potential as educational support tools. However, the lower accuracy of ChatGPT-4o reduced its suitability for assessment. Despite these limitations, AI shows promise in medical education. Future research should focus on improving the reliability, incorporating visual data interpretation, and exploring clinical integration.
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.