ReviewJB & JS open access
ChatGPT-4o is Not a Reliable Study Source for Orthopaedic Surgery Residents.
Review in JB & JS open access. 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.
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
Background: The use of artificial intelligence platforms by medical residents as an educational resource is increasing. Within orthopaedic surgery, older Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) models performed worse than resident physicians on practice examinations and rarely answered questions with images correctly. The newer ChatGPT-4o was designed to improve these deficiencies but has not been evaluated. This study analyzed (1) ChatGPT-4o's ability to correctly answer Orthopaedic In-Training Examination (OITE) questions and (2) the educational quality of the answer explanations that it presents to our orthopaedic surgery trainees. Methods: The 2020 to 2022 OITEs were uploaded into ChatGPT-4o. Annual score reports were used to compare the chatbot's raw score with that of ACGME-accredited orthopaedic residents. ChatGPT-4o's answer explanations were then compared with those provided by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and categorized based on (1) the chatbot's answer (correct/incorrect) and (2) the chatbot's answer explanation when compared with the explanation provided by AAOS subject-matter experts (classified as consistent, disparate, or nonexistent). Overall ChatGPT-4o response quality was then simplified into 3 groups. An "ideal" response combined a correct answer with a consistent explanation. "Inadequate" responses provided a correct answer but no explanation. "Unacceptable" responses provided an incorrect answer or disparate explanation. Results: ChatGPT-4o scored 68.8%, 63.4%, and 70.1% on the 2020, 2021, and 2022 OITEs, respectively. These raw scores corresponded with ACGME-accredited postgraduate year-5 (PGY-5), PGY2-3, and PGY-4 resident physicians. Pediatrics and Spine were the only subspecialties whereby ChatGPT-4o consistently performed better than a junior resident (≥PGY-3). The quality of responses provided by ChatGPT-4o was ideal, inadequate, or unacceptable in 58.7%, 6.9%, and 34.4% of questions, respectively. ChatGPT-4o scored significantly lower on media-related questions when compared with nonmedia questions (60.0% versus 73.1%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: ChatGPT-4o performed inconsistently on the OITE. Moreover, the responses it provided trainees were not always ideal. Its limited performance on media-based orthopaedic surgery questions also persisted. The use of ChatGPT by resident physicians while studying orthopaedic surgery concepts remains unvalidated. Level of Evidence: Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.