Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40924209›Full record

ArticleActa neurochirurgica2025

Comparative performance of neurosurgery-specific, peer-reviewed versus general AI chatbots in bilingual board examinations: evaluating accuracy, consistency, and error minimization strategies.

Mahmut Çamlar, Umut Tan Sevgi, Gökberk Erol, Furkan Karakaş, Yücel Doğruel, Abuzer Güngör

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mahmut ÇamlarDepartment of Neurosurgery, Izmir City Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Şevket İnce Neighborhood, 2148/11 Street, No:1/11, 35540, Bayraklı, İzmir, Turkey. drcamlar@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6467-0172
Umut Tan SevgiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Izmir City Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Şevket İnce Neighborhood, 2148/11 Street, No:1/11, 35540, Bayraklı, İzmir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3875-859X
Gökberk ErolDepartment of Neurosurgery, Adıyaman Training and Research Hospital, Adıyaman, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6651-5486
Furkan KarakaşMedical School, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-3875-6319
Yücel DoğruelDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Health Sciences, Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4314-5579
Abuzer GüngörDepartment of Neurosurgery, Istinye University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2792-7610

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementMultilingualismNeurosurgerySpecialty BoardsGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansPeer ReviewTurkeyArtificial intelligenceExamination questionNeurosurgeryPerformance evaluation

Identifiers

PMID40924209
PMCPMC12420735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.