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

被引:81
作者
Ali, Rohaid [1 ,6 ]
Tang, Oliver Y. [1 ]
Connolly, Ian D. [2 ]
Sullivan, Patricia L. Zadnik [1 ]
Shin, John H. [3 ]
Fridley, Jared S. [1 ]
Asaad, Wael F. [1 ,3 ,4 ,5 ]
Cielo, Deus [1 ]
Oyelese, Adetokunbo A. [1 ]
Doberstein, Curtis E. [1 ]
Gokaslan, Ziya L. [1 ]
Telfeian, Albert E. [1 ]
机构
[1] USA, Blountstown, FL USA
[2] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Neurosurg, Boston, MA USA
[3] Rhode Isl Hosp, Norman Prince Neurosci Inst, Dept Neurosci, Providence, RI 02903 USA
[4] Brown Univ, Dept Neurosci, Providence, RI USA
[5] Brown Univ, Carney Inst Brain Sci, Dept Neurosci, Providence, RI USA
[6] Rhode Isl Hosp, Dept Neurosurg, LPG Neurosurg, 593 Eddy St,APC6, Providence, RI 02903 USA
关键词
Neurosurgery; Medical education; Surgical education; Residency education; Artificial intelligence; Large language models; ChatGPT; GPT-4;
D O I
10.1227/neu.0000000000002632
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: 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.METHODS: 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. chi 2, Fisher exact, and univariable logistic regression tests were used to assess performance differences in relation to question characteristics.RESULTS: 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.CONCLUSION: LLMs achieved passing scores on a mock 500-question neurosurgical written board examination, with GPT-4 significantly outperforming ChatGPT.
引用
收藏
页码:1353 / 1365
页数:13
相关论文
共 14 条
  • [1] Ali R., Neurosurgery, DOI [10.1227/neu.0000000000002618, DOI 10.1227/NEU.0000000000002618]
  • [2] Study Behaviors and USMLE Step 1 Performance: Implications of a Student Self-Directed Parallel Curriculum
    Burk-Rafel, Jesse
    Santen, Sally A.
    Purkiss, Joel
    [J]. ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2017, 92 (11) : S67 - S74
  • [3] How to develop machine learning models for healthcare
    Chen, Po-Hsuan Cameron
    Liu, Yun
    Peng, Lily
    [J]. NATURE MATERIALS, 2019, 18 (05) : 410 - 414
  • [4] Gupta A, 2023, A Responsible Path to Generative AI in Healthcare
  • [5] Kung TH, 2023, PLOS DIGIT HEALTH, V2, DOI 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198
  • [6] A deep learning system for differential diagnosis of skin diseases
    Liu, Yuan
    Jain, Ayush
    Eng, Clara
    Way, David H.
    Lee, Kang
    Bui, Peggy
    Kanada, Kimberly
    de Oliveira Marinho, Guilherme
    Gallegos, Jessica
    Gabriele, Sara
    Gupta, Vishakha
    Singh, Nalini
    Natarajan, Vivek
    Hofmann-Wellenhof, Rainer
    Corrado, Greg S.
    Peng, Lily H.
    Webster, Dale R.
    Ai, Dennis
    Huang, Susan J.
    Liu, Yun
    Dunn, R. Carter
    Coz, David
    [J]. NATURE MEDICINE, 2020, 26 (06) : 900 - +
  • [7] Martinez E., 2023, SSRN Electron J, P410
  • [8] Moran S., 2020, How to Prepare for the USMLE Step 1
  • [9] Nori H., 2023, CAPABILITIES GPT 4 M
  • [10] Nori H., 2023, arXiv