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 [Oxford University Press]
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
更新
PDF的下载单位、IP信息已删除 (2025-6-4)

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
小璐发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
linjiebro发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
3秒前
3秒前
4秒前
怡然幻梅完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
4秒前
田様应助张力航采纳,获得10
4秒前
香蕉觅云应助飘逸的凝云采纳,获得10
4秒前
飞云发布了新的文献求助10
4秒前
GingerF应助Wei采纳,获得100
4秒前
5秒前
Hunter完成签到,获得积分10
5秒前
6秒前
英姑应助小璐采纳,获得30
6秒前
7秒前
7秒前
8秒前
9秒前
Wy21完成签到 ,获得积分10
9秒前
9秒前
wx0816发布了新的文献求助10
10秒前
dayu大雨发布了新的文献求助10
10秒前
正直敏发布了新的文献求助10
10秒前
ljc完成签到,获得积分10
10秒前
憨憨发布了新的文献求助10
11秒前
独自受罪发布了新的文献求助10
11秒前
usr123完成签到 ,获得积分10
11秒前
咕咕鸡完成签到,获得积分20
11秒前
NULIFENDOU发布了新的文献求助10
11秒前
12秒前
才染完成签到 ,获得积分10
13秒前
万能图书馆应助犹豫慕梅采纳,获得10
16秒前
17秒前
tleeny完成签到,获得积分20
17秒前
L晨晨完成签到 ,获得积分10
17秒前
wdl完成签到 ,获得积分10
18秒前
18秒前
19秒前
NULIFENDOU完成签到,获得积分10
19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
The Social Work Ethics Casebook: Cases and Commentary (revised 2nd ed.).. Frederic G. Reamer 1070
Alloy Phase Diagrams 1000
Introduction to Early Childhood Education 1000
2025-2031年中国兽用抗生素行业发展深度调研与未来趋势报告 1000
List of 1,091 Public Pension Profiles by Region 891
Historical Dictionary of British Intelligence (2014 / 2nd EDITION!) 500
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 生物化学 物理 纳米技术 计算机科学 内科学 化学工程 复合材料 物理化学 基因 遗传学 催化作用 冶金 量子力学 光电子学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 5424308
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 4538684
关于积分的说明 14163217
捐赠科研通 4455559
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 2443800
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 1434944
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 1412304