ArticleActa neurochirurgica2025
Comparative performance of neurosurgery-specific, peer-reviewed versus general AI chatbots in bilingual board examinations: evaluating accuracy, consistency, and error minimization strategies.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 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.
- Humans vs. large language models in neurology board examination: performance, limitations, and reference reliability.Acta neurologica Belgica · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent studies suggest that large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are useful tools for medical students or residents when preparing for examinations. These studies, especially those conducted with multiple-choice questions, emphasize that the level of knowledge and response consistency of the LLMs are generally acceptable; however, further optimization is needed in areas such as case discussion, interpretation, and language proficiency. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the performance of six distinct LLMs for Turkish and English neurosurgery multiple-choice questions and assess their accuracy and consistency in a specialized medical context.
methodsA total of 599 multiple-choice questions drawn from Turkish Board examinations and an English neurosurgery question bank were presented to six LLMs (ChatGPT-o1pro, ChatGPT-4, AtlasGPT, Gemini, Copilot, and ChatGPT-3.5). Correctness rates were compared using the proportion z-test, and inter-model consistency was examined using Cohen's kappa.
resultsChatGPT-o1pro, ChatGPT-4, and AtlasGPT demonstrated relatively high accuracy for Single Best Answer-Recall of Knowledge (SBA-R), Single Best Answer-Interpretative Application of Knowledge (SBA-I), and True/False question types; however, performance notably decreased for questions with images, with some models leaving many unanswered items.
conclusionOur findings suggest that GPT-4-based models and AtlasGPT can handle specialized neurosurgery questions at a near-expert level for SBA-R, SBA-I, and True/False formats. Nevertheless, all models exhibit notable limitations in questions with images, indicating that these tools remain supplementary rather than definitive solutions for neurosurgical training and decision-making.
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.