ArticleO&G open2024
Optimizing the Evaluation of Letters of Recommendation for Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Applicants: Development and Validation of a ChatGPT-Powered Tool.
Article in O&G open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveTo develop and validate a ChatGPT-powered tool for assessing letters of recommendation in obstetrics and gynecology residency applicants.
methodsThis study was conducted in two phases at a university-based obstetrics and gynecology residency program. During the development phase, 30 letters of recommendation were used to create ChatGPT prompts based on a validated scoring rubric that assesses phrases, letter features, and applicant abilities. ChatGPT scores were compared with benchmarks using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to evaluate reliability, and ChatGPT processing times were measured against those of human reviewers. In the second phase (validation), 88 letters of recommendation from residents with and without academic deficiencies (n=30) were analyzed using the ChatGPT prompts developed and refined in the first stage. Residents with academic deficiencies (case group) were matched 1:1 with a control group of residents without noted deficiencies by medical school, gender, and training period. The letter of recommendation scores between the case and control groups then were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsChatGPT significantly reduced review time per letter, from 7.2 minutes to 45 seconds. Inter-rater reliability between ChatGPT and benchmark scores indicated strong agreement for specific phrases (ICC 0.82, 95% CI, 0.75-0.88), moderate agreement for letter features (ICC 0.75, 95% CI, 0.68-0.82), and fair agreement for applicant abilities (ICC 0.70, 95% CI, 0.62-0.78). After refinement, ICCs improved to 0.92 (95% CI, 0.88-0.95), 0.81 (95% CI, 0.74-0.87), and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.69-0.84). Mean letter of recommendation scores for specific phrases differed significantly between residents with deficiencies (4.49; 95% CI, 3.29-5.68) and residents in the control group (6.00; 95% CI, 5.00-7.00) (
conclusionChatGPT can enhance the residency selection process by providing reliable letter of recommendation analysis significantly faster than human reviewers and effectively identifying key phrases in letters of recommendation that could predict future academic deficiencies.
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.