Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42137071›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine

Evaluation of ChatGPT's performance on emergency medicine board examination questions.

Mustafa Can Guzelce, Sefer Ozgur, Ilker Salli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Mustafa Can GuzelceDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Izmir University of Economics Medicalpoint Hospital, Izmir, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4141-2661
Sefer OzgurDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Izmir University of Economics Medicalpoint Hospital, Izmir, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7908-6422
Ilker SalliDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Izmir Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8954-8421

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe aimed to evaluate the performance of a large language model (ChatGPT) in answering official sample questions from the Turkish Board of Emergency Medicine (TBEM). Two versions of the model, GPT-4 and GPT-4o, were assessed to explore consistency and accuracy across iterations.

methodsA cross-sectional observational study was conducted using 25 standardized multiple-choice questions publicly released by TBEM. Each question was manually entered into GPT-4 and GPT-4o through the OpenAI interface. Both models were prompted to select the best single answer from the provided options without additional clarification or training context. Model responses were evaluated for accuracy, consistency upon repetition, and domain-specific error types. This study is compliant with the STROBE statement and the MedinAI reporting guidelines.

resultsGPT-4 correctly answered 20 out of 25 questions (80%) on the first attempt. On repetition, its score improved to 84%. GPT-4o also achieved a score of 88% (22/25) on its first attempt and showed consistent results upon a second evaluation, providing identical answers in both trials. Errors occurred in the domains of trauma during pregnancy, pediatric resuscitation, and adult resuscitation protocols. Both models demonstrated strong performance in fact-based domains and in questions involving image descriptions.

conclusionGPT-4 and GPT-4o performed above the TBEM passing threshold, showing solid accuracy across a range of emergency medicine topics. Both excelled in fact-based and image-related questions. However, they showed limitations in clinical reasoning, particularly in scenarios requiring nuanced judgment. These tools may support examination preparation but should not replace the expertise of trained emergency physicians.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceboard examinationChatGPTemergency medicineGPT-4large language modelsTurkish Board of Emergency Medicine

Identifiers

PMID42137071
PMCPMC13171114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.