ArticleUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2025
Performance of ChatGPT-4o in thoracic trauma: A comparative evaluation with guidelines.
Article 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 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 advancements for orthopaedic clinical reasoning: longitudinal assessment of newer models (ChatGPT-5, Grok-3, Gemini 2.5 Flash) compared to clinicians.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluation of multimodal large language models for pneumothorax assessment in real-world clinical scenarios.BMC pulmonary medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT-4o in thoracic trauma management by comparing its responses to established clinical guidelines.
methodsFive major thoracic surgery guidelines were reviewed, including the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) Guidelines 2018, Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) Guidelines 2020, Evaluation and management of traumatic pneumothorax: A Western Trauma Association critical decisions algorithm 2022, European Trauma Course (ETC) Guidelines 2016, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guidelines for Trauma 2020. Fifty open-ended questions were developed based on these guidelines and submitted to ChatGPT-4o. Five thoracic surgery specialists evaluated the artificial intelligence (AI) responses using a 5-point Likert scale.
resultsChatGPT-4o achieved an average score of 4.76+-0.57 on the 50-question evaluation. ChatGPT-4o excelled in questions derived from well-defined guidelines, demonstrating its ability to synthesize and apply guideline-based medical knowledge. Its performance aligns with previous studies in urological trauma and emergency medicine, which reported similar reliability. However, its reliance on pre-existing data limits its effectiveness in addressing highly nuanced or novel clinical scenarios. These findings underscore its potential as a complementary tool in guideline-driven medical contexts while emphasizing the need for clinical oversight in complex cases.
conclusionChatGPT-4o performed strongly in thoracic trauma management questions, demonstrating minimal errors and high reliability. These results suggest it could serve as a valuable support tool for clinical decision-making, particularly in scenarios guided by established protocols. Further exploration into broader medical domains is warranted.
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.