Sung Eun Kim, Ji Han Lee, Byung Sun Choi, Hyuk-Soo Han, Myung Chul Lee, Du Hyun Ro
{"title":"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。","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":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"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":"{\"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\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"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\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4055/cios23179\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4055/cios23179","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Performance of ChatGPT on Solving Orthopedic Board-Style Questions: A Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.
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.
期刊介绍：
Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance.
Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
