ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Assessing multiple chatGPT versions on novel content in the Taiwan urology board examination: accuracy, speed, and domain-specific performance.
Article in World journal of urology, 2026. 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
purposeLarge language models demonstrate increasing utility in healthcare; however, their capacity to handle newly developed medical content beyond training data boundaries remains unclear. This study evaluated the performance of four ChatGPT models on 120 newly developed questions from the 2024 Taiwan Urology Board Examination, all created after the models' October 2023 training cutoff, thereby reducing the risk of prior model exposure.
methodsModel performance was assessed using accuracy and processing time. Of 150 examination items, the first 120 newly developed questions constituted the primary analysis set; the remaining 30 previously used archival questions were excluded to reduce potential bias from prior exposure. The primary paired accuracy comparison evaluated o1-preview versus GPT-4o across all 120 questions. Additional analyses across 12 urological subspecialties and question-complexity strata were treated as exploratory.
resultsAcross all 120 questions, o1-preview achieved 66.7% accuracy and significantly outperformed GPT-4o (55.8%; p = 0.012), although with longer processing time (19.20 vs. 14.94 s). Performance varied significantly across 12 urological subspecialties (p < 0.001). Unlike the other tested models, o1-preview showed slightly higher accuracy on high-complexity than on low-complexity questions (68.3% vs. 65.0%). On high-complexity surgical anatomy items, o1-preview achieved 80.0% accuracy, whereas GPT-4o and GPT-4o mini both scored 0.0% (p = 0.024).
conclusionOn this newly developed post-cutoff, text-based urology board question set, o1-preview achieved higher overall accuracy than GPT-4o, particularly on high-complexity surgical anatomy items, at the cost of longer response times. These findings suggest that reasoning-oriented models may offer advantages for selected specialty-level assessment tasks, although generalizability to other languages, modalities, and clinical settings requires further validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42201363What 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.