Performance of ChatGPT and GPT-4 on Neurosurgery Written Board Examinations

医学 神经外科 梅德林 医学物理学 放射科 政治学 法学
作者
Rohaid Ali,Oliver Y. Tang,Ian D. Connolly,Patricia L. Zadnik Sullivan,John H. Shin,Jared S. Fridley,Wael F. Asaad,Deus Cielo,Adetokunbo A. Oyelese,Curtis E. Doberstein,Ziya L. Gokaslan,Albert E. Telfeian
出处
期刊:Neurosurgery [Lippincott Williams & Wilkins]
被引量:143
标识
DOI:10.1227/neu.0000000000002632
摘要

Interest surrounding generative large language models (LLMs) has rapidly grown. Although ChatGPT (GPT-3.5), a general LLM, has shown near-passing performance on medical student board examinations, the performance of ChatGPT or its successor GPT-4 on specialized examinations and the factors affecting accuracy remain unclear. This study aims to assess the performance of ChatGPT and GPT-4 on a 500-question mock neurosurgical written board examination. The Self-Assessment Neurosurgery Examinations (SANS) American Board of Neurological Surgery Self-Assessment Examination 1 was used to evaluate ChatGPT and GPT-4. Questions were in single best answer, multiple-choice format. χ 2 , Fisher exact, and univariable logistic regression tests were used to assess performance differences in relation to question characteristics. ChatGPT (GPT-3.5) and GPT-4 achieved scores of 73.4% (95% CI: 69.3%-77.2%) and 83.4% (95% CI: 79.8%-86.5%), respectively, relative to the user average of 72.8% (95% CI: 68.6%-76.6%). Both LLMs exceeded last year's passing threshold of 69%. Although scores between ChatGPT and question bank users were equivalent ( P = .963), GPT-4 outperformed both (both P < .001). GPT-4 answered every question answered correctly by ChatGPT and 37.6% (50/133) of remaining incorrect questions correctly. Among 12 question categories, GPT-4 significantly outperformed users in each but performed comparably with ChatGPT in 3 (functional, other general, and spine) and outperformed both users and ChatGPT for tumor questions. Increased word count (odds ratio = 0.89 of answering a question correctly per +10 words) and higher-order problem-solving (odds ratio = 0.40, P = .009) were associated with lower accuracy for ChatGPT, but not for GPT-4 (both P > .005). Multimodal input was not available at the time of this study; hence, on questions with image content, ChatGPT and GPT-4 answered 49.5% and 56.8% of questions correctly based on contextual context clues alone. LLMs achieved passing scores on a mock 500-question neurosurgical written board examination, with GPT-4 significantly outperforming ChatGPT.
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
刚刚
大个应助Yuanxiangqin采纳,获得10
刚刚
呆呆要努力完成签到,获得积分10
刚刚
wenge发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
1秒前
天天快乐应助Yummy采纳,获得10
1秒前
小冠军完成签到,获得积分10
1秒前
shisui发布了新的文献求助30
1秒前
1秒前
2秒前
Rhea发布了新的文献求助10
2秒前
2秒前
3秒前
捏个小雪团完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
开心妙之完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
223311发布了新的文献求助10
4秒前
斯文败类应助彩色一手采纳,获得10
4秒前
4秒前
4秒前
4秒前
4秒前
小白菜发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
5秒前
哇塞发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
研友_zLaJQn发布了新的文献求助10
6秒前
wenge完成签到,获得积分20
6秒前
6秒前
6秒前
追风发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
开心妙之发布了新的文献求助20
7秒前
7秒前
Hyperme完成签到,获得积分10
7秒前
17381362015完成签到 ,获得积分10
7秒前
丫鸡彦祖完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
生动的战斗机完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
香蕉觅云应助hht采纳,获得10
8秒前
9秒前
genau000完成签到 ,获得积分10
9秒前
青衫发布了新的文献求助10
9秒前
小乖发布了新的文献求助10
9秒前
高分求助中
(应助此贴封号)【重要!!请各用户(尤其是新用户)详细阅读】【科研通的精品贴汇总】 10000
Burger's Medicinal Chemistry, Drug Discovery and Development, Volumes 1 - 8, 8 Volume Set, 8th Edition 1800
Cronologia da história de Macau 1600
Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (3rd Edition) 1000
International Arbitration Law and Practice 1000
文献PREDICTION EQUATIONS FOR SHIPS' TURNING CIRCLES或期刊Transactions of the North East Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders第95卷 1000
BRITTLE FRACTURE IN WELDED SHIPS 1000
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 工程类 有机化学 纳米技术 计算机科学 化学工程 生物化学 物理 复合材料 内科学 催化作用 物理化学 光电子学 细胞生物学 基因 电极 遗传学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 6160181
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 7988397
关于积分的说明 16604390
捐赠科研通 5268510
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 2811059
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 1791246
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 1658124