Performance of ChatGPT on Solving Orthopedic Board-Style Questions: A Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.

IF 1.9 2区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-07 DOI:10.4055/cios23179
Sung Eun Kim, Ji Han Lee, Byung Sun Choi, Hyuk-Soo Han, Myung Chul Lee, Du Hyun Ro
{"title":"Performance of ChatGPT on Solving Orthopedic Board-Style Questions: A Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.","authors":"Sung Eun Kim, Ji Han Lee, Byung Sun Choi, Hyuk-Soo Han, Myung Chul Lee, Du Hyun Ro","doi":"10.4055/cios23179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The application of artificial intelligence and large language models in the medical field requires an evaluation of their accuracy in providing medical information. This study aimed to assess the performance of Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) models 3.5 and 4 in solving orthopedic board-style questions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 160 text-only questions from the Orthopedic Surgery Department at Seoul National University Hospital, conforming to the format of the Korean Orthopedic Association board certification examinations, were input into the ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4 programs. The questions were divided into 11 subcategories. The accuracy rates of the initial answers provided by Chat GPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4 were analyzed. In addition, inconsistency rates of answers were evaluated by regenerating the responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT 3.5 answered 37.5% of the questions correctly, while ChatGPT 4 showed an accuracy rate of 60.0% (<i>p</i> < 0.001). ChatGPT 4 demonstrated superior performance across most subcategories, except for the tumor-related questions. The rates of inconsistency in answers were 47.5% for ChatGPT 3.5 and 9.4% for ChatGPT 4.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ChatGPT 4 showed the ability to pass orthopedic board-style examinations, outperforming ChatGPT 3.5 in accuracy rate. However, inconsistencies in response generation and instances of incorrect answers with misleading explanations require caution when applying ChatGPT in clinical settings or for educational purposes.</p>","PeriodicalId":47648,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery","volume":"16 4","pages":"669-673"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11262944/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4055/cios23179","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The application of artificial intelligence and large language models in the medical field requires an evaluation of their accuracy in providing medical information. This study aimed to assess the performance of Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) models 3.5 and 4 in solving orthopedic board-style questions.

Methods: A total of 160 text-only questions from the Orthopedic Surgery Department at Seoul National University Hospital, conforming to the format of the Korean Orthopedic Association board certification examinations, were input into the ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4 programs. The questions were divided into 11 subcategories. The accuracy rates of the initial answers provided by Chat GPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4 were analyzed. In addition, inconsistency rates of answers were evaluated by regenerating the responses.

Results: ChatGPT 3.5 answered 37.5% of the questions correctly, while ChatGPT 4 showed an accuracy rate of 60.0% (p < 0.001). ChatGPT 4 demonstrated superior performance across most subcategories, except for the tumor-related questions. The rates of inconsistency in answers were 47.5% for ChatGPT 3.5 and 9.4% for ChatGPT 4.

Conclusions: ChatGPT 4 showed the ability to pass orthopedic board-style examinations, outperforming ChatGPT 3.5 in accuracy rate. However, inconsistencies in response generation and instances of incorrect answers with misleading explanations require caution when applying ChatGPT in clinical settings or for educational purposes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
ChatGPT 在解决骨科 Board 类型问题上的性能:ChatGPT 3.5 和 ChatGPT 4 的比较分析。
背景:在医疗领域应用人工智能和大型语言模型需要对其提供医疗信息的准确性进行评估。本研究旨在评估 Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer(ChatGPT)3.5 和 4 模型在解决骨科板式问题时的性能:在 ChatGPT 3.5 和 ChatGPT 4 程序中输入了来自首尔国立大学医院骨外科的 160 道纯文本试题,这些试题符合韩国骨科协会委员会认证考试的格式。这些问题被分为 11 个子类别。对 Chat GPT 3.5 和 ChatGPT 4 所提供的初始答案的准确率进行了分析。此外,还通过重新生成答案评估了答案的不一致率:结果:ChatGPT 3.5 回答正确率为 37.5%,而 ChatGPT 4 的正确率为 60.0%(p < 0.001)。除肿瘤相关问题外,ChatGPT 4 在大多数子类别中都表现优异。ChatGPT 3.5 的答案不一致率为 47.5%,ChatGPT 4 为 9.4%:结论:ChatGPT 4 显示了通过骨科委员会式考试的能力,在准确率方面优于 ChatGPT 3.5。然而,在将 ChatGPT 应用于临床环境或教育目的时,需要注意在生成答案时的不一致性以及错误答案和误导性解释的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.00%
发文量
85
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊最新文献
Staged Fixation with Respect to Soft Tissue in Tibial Plateau Fractures with Acute Compartment Syndrome: Correlation Analysis of Complications. The Incidence and Risk Factors of Symptomatic Local Recurrence Following Surgical Treatment for Spinal Metastasis with Involvement of All Three Columns: Focusing on the Extent of Tumor Removal. Transcultural Adaptation of the Korean Version of the International Hip Outcome Tool 12. Incidence and Risk Factors of Deep Vein Thrombosis after Foot and Ankle Surgery. Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Distal Radius Fractures with Complete Intra-articular Involvement and Diaphyseal Extension.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1