ArticleAnnals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches2025
Leveraging Large Language Models to Evaluate the Quality of Narrative Feedback for Surgery Residents in Competency-Based Medical Education.
Article in Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches, 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.
- Top 5 Surgical Education Innovations for Low-Resource Settings Over the Last 50 years.World journal of surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate large language model (LLM) performance in evaluating narrative feedback quality in the entrustable professional activities (EPAs) assessments within a Surgical Foundations program. Background: Transitioning to competency-based medical education (CBME) has increased the volume of narrative feedback for surgery residents. However, evaluating narrative feedback quality is time-consuming, requiring manual review by humans. LLMs show potential for automating this process. Methods: An existing dataset of 2229 deidentified comments from EPA assessments for surgery residents in an academic program (2017-2022) was analyzed using generative pre-trained transformer (GPT)-3.5-turbo-1106 and GPT-4-1106-preview. LLM-generated scores were compared to Quality of Assessment for Learning (QuAL) scores assigned by human raters. F1 score was the primary metric for model accuracy. Performance improvements were measured for each LLM by comparing F1 scores across different prompting techniques and fine-tuning strategies against baseline performance. Results: GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 performance varied significantly across prompting techniques due to differences in model architecture. GPT-4 achieved the highest F1 scores for Suggestion (0.901) and Connection (0.882) but underperformed in the Evidence dimension (0.554) of the QuAL score. Fine-tuning was not available for GPT-4 during the study, although fine-tuned GPT-3.5 showed improved LLM performance with high F1 scores for Evidence (0.827), Suggestion (0.949), and Connection (0.933). Conclusions: Fine-tuned GPT-3.5 demonstrated strong potential for automating the evaluation of narrative feedback quality for surgery residents. However, LLM performance depends on the task and how well task structure aligns with the LLM architecture. LLM use in CBME may facilitate continuous quality improvement, providing faculty with automated feedback on their feedback.
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.