ArticleJournal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base2025
Accuracy and Completeness of Bard and Chat-GPT 4 Responses for Questions Derived from the International Consensus Statement on Endoscopic Skull-Base Surgery 2019.
Article in Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence large language models (LLMs), such as Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer 4 (Chat-GPT) by OpenAI and Bard by Google, emerged in 2022 as tools for answering questions, providing information, and offering suggestions to the layperson. These LLMs impact how information is disseminated and it is essential to compare their answers to experts in the corresponding field. The International Consensus Statement on Endoscopic Skull-Base Surgery 2019 (ICAR:SB) is a multidisciplinary international collaboration that critically evaluated and graded the current literature. Objectives: Evaluate the accuracy and completeness of Chat-GPT and Bard responses to questions derived from the ICAR:SB policy statements. Design: Thirty-four questions were created based on ICAR:SB policy statements and input into Chat-GPT and Bard. Two rhinologists and two neurosurgeons graded the accuracy and completeness of LLM responses, using a 5-point Likert scale. The Wilcoxon rank-sum and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for analysis. Setting: Online. Participants: None. Outcomes: Compare the mean accuracy and completeness scores between (1) responses generated by Chat-GPT versus Bard and (2) rhinologists versus neurosurgeons. Results: Using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, there were statistically significant differences in (1) accuracy ( Conclusion: Chat-GPT responses are overall more accurate and complete compared with Bard, but both are very accurate and complete. Overall, rhinologists graded lower than neurosurgeons. Further research is needed to better understand the full potential of LLMs.
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.