Cited by 83Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationSurgical Simulation and TrainingInnovations in Medical Education

Evaluating capabilities of large language models: Performance of GPT-4 on surgical knowledge assessments

Open access
Beaulieu-Jones, Brendin R., Berrigan, Margaret T., Shah, Sahaj, Marwaha, Jayson S., Lai, Shuo-Lun, Brat, Gabriel A.·2024·Surgery

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background Artificial intelligence has the potential to dramatically alter health care by enhancing how we diagnose and treat disease. One promising artificial intelligence model is ChatGPT, a general-purpose large language model trained by OpenAI. ChatGPT has shown human-level performance on several professional and academic benchmarks. We sought to evaluate its performance on surgical knowledge questions and assess the stability of this performance on repeat queries. Methods We evaluated the performance of ChatGPT-4 on questions from the Surgical Council on Resident Education question bank and a second commonly used surgical knowledge assessment, referred to as Data-B. Questions were entered in 2 formats: open-ended and multiple-choice. ChatGPT outputs were assessed for accuracy and insights by surgeon evaluators. We categorized reasons for model errors and the stability of performance on repeat queries. Results A total of 167 Surgical Council on Resident Education and 112 Data-B questions were presented to the ChatGPT interface. ChatGPT correctly answered 71.3% and 67.9% of multiple choice and 47.9% and 66.1% of open-ended questions for Surgical Council on Resident Education and Data-B, respectively. For both open-ended and multiple-choice questions, approximately two-thirds of ChatGPT responses contained nonobvious insights. Common reasons for incorrect responses included inaccurate information in a complex question (n = 16, 36.4%), inaccurate information in a fact-based question (n = 11, 25.0%), and accurate information with circumstantial discrepancy (n = 6, 13.6%). Upon repeat query, the answer selected by ChatGPT varied for 36.4% of questions answered incorrectly on the first query; the response accuracy changed for 6/16 (37.5%) questions. Conclusion Consistent with findings in other academic and professional domains, we demonstrate near or above human-level performance of ChatGPT on surgical knowledge questions from 2 widely used question banks. ChatGPT performed better on multiple-choice than open-ended questions, prompting questions regarding its potential for clinical application. Unique to this study, we demonstrate inconsistency in ChatGPT responses on repeat queries. This finding warrants future consideration including efforts at training large language models to provide the safe and consistent responses required for clinical application. Despite near or above human-level performance on question banks and given these observations, it is unclear whether large language models such as ChatGPT are able to safely assist clinicians in providing care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.surg.2023.12.014

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Khalsa RK, Khashkhusha A, Zaidi S, Harky A, Bashir M. Artificial intelligence and cardiac surgery during COVID-19 era. J Card Surg 2021;36(5):1729-1733. doi:10.1111/JOCS.15417 [PubMed: 33567126] · DOI
  2. Mehta N, Pandit A, Shukla S. Transforming healthcare with big data analytics and artificial intelligence: A systematic mapping study. J Biomed Inform 2019;100. doi:10.1016/ J.JBI.2019.103311 · DOI
  3. Payrovnaziri SN, Chen Z, Rengifo-Moreno P, et al. Explainable artificial intelligence models using real-world electronic health record data: a systematic scoping review. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA 2020;27(7):1173-1185. doi:10.1093/JAMIA/OCAA053 [PubMed: 32417928] · DOI
  4. Xiao C, Choi E, Sun J. Opportunities and challenges in developing deep learning models using electronic health records data: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA 2018;25(10):1419-1428. doi:10.1093/JAMIA/OCY068 [PubMed: 29893864] · DOI · Paper page
  5. Luh JY, Thompson RF, Lin S. Clinical Documentation and Patient Care Using Artificial Intelligence in Radiation Oncology. J Am Coll Radiol JACR 2019;16(9 Pt B):1343-1346. doi:10.1016/ J.JACR.2019.05.044 [PubMed: 31238022] · DOI
  6. Johnson SP, Wormer BA, Silvestrini R, Perdikis G, Drolet BC. Reducing Opioid Prescribing After Ambulatory Plastic Surgery With an Opioid-Restrictive Pain Protocol. Ann Plast Surg 2020;84(6S Suppl 5):S431-S436. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000002272 [PubMed: 32032123] · DOI
  7. Makhni EC, Makhni S, Ramkumar PN. Artificial Intelligence for the Orthopaedic Surgeon: An Overview of Potential Benefits, Limitations, and Clinical Applications. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2021;29(6):235-243. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-20-00846 [PubMed: 33323681] · DOI · Paper page
  8. Hammouda N, Neyra JA. Can Artificial Intelligence Assist in Delivering Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy? Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 2022;29(5):439-449. doi:10.1053/ J.ACKD.2022.08.001 [PubMed: 36253027] · DOI
  9. McBee MP, Awan OA, Colucci AT, et al. Deep Learning in Radiology. Acad Radiol 2018;25(11):1472-1480. doi:10.1016/J.ACRA.2018.02.018 [PubMed: 29606338] · DOI
  10. Rashidi HH, Tran NK, Betts EV, Howell LP, Green R. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Pathology: The Present Landscape of Supervised Methods. Acad Pathol 2019;6. doi:10.1177/2374289519873088 · DOI
  11. Mumtaz H, Saqib M, Ansar F, et al. The future of Cardiothoracic surgery in Artificial intelligence. Ann Med Surg 2012 2022;80. doi:10.1016/J.AMSU.2022.104251 · DOI
  12. Raffort J, Adam C, Carrier M, Lareyre F. Fundamentals in Artificial Intelligence for Vascular Surgeons. Ann Vasc Surg 2020;65:254-260. doi:10.1016/J.AVSG.2019.11.037 [PubMed: 31857229] · DOI
  13. Stumpo V, Staartjes VE, Regli L, Serra C. Machine Learning in Pituitary Surgery. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2022;134:291-301. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-85292-4_33 [PubMed: 34862553] · DOI
  14. Petch J, Di S, Nelson W. Opening the Black Box: The Promise and Limitations of Explainable Machine Learning in Cardiology. Can J Cardiol 2022;38(2):204-213. doi:10.1016/ J.CJCA.2021.09.004 [PubMed: 34534619] · DOI · Paper page
  15. Jarrett D, Stride E, Vallis K, Gooding MJ. Applications and limitations of machine learning in radiation oncology. Br J Radiol 2019;92(1100). doi:10.1259/BJR.20190001 · DOI
  16. Cheng JY, Abel JT, Balis UGJ, McClintock DS, Pantanowitz L. Challenges in the Development, Deployment, and Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in Anatomic Pathology. Am J Pathol 2021;191(10):1684-1692. doi:10.1016/J.AJPATH.2020.10.018 [PubMed: 33245914] · DOI
  17. Sarno L, Neola D, Carbone L, et al. Use of artificial intelligence in obstetrics: not quite ready for prime time. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2023;5(2). doi:10.1016/J.AJOGMF.2022.100792 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Zhang C, Zhang C, Li C, Qiao Y. One Small Step for Generative AI, One Giant Leap for AGI: A Complete Survey on ChatGPT in AIGC Era. ArXiv 1013140RG222478970883 Published online April 4, 2023.
  19. Quick uptake of ChatGPT, and more -this week's best science graphics. Nature Published online February 28, 2023. doi:10.1038/D41586-023-00603-2 · DOI
  20. Gilson A, Safranek CW, Huang T, et al. How Does ChatGPT Perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination? The Implications of Large Language Models for Medical Education and Knowledge Assessment. JMIR Med Educ 2023;9. doi:10.2196/45312 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Kung TH, Cheatham M, Medenilla A, et al. Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digit Health 2023;2(2):e0000198. doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PDIG.0000198 [PubMed: 36812645] · DOI · Paper page
  22. Morreel S, Mathysen D, Verhoeven V. Aye, AI! ChatGPT passes multiple-choice family medicine exam. Med Teach Published online 2023. doi:10.1080/0142159X.2023.2187684 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Hopkins BS, Nguyen VN, Dallas J, et al. ChatGPT versus the neurosurgical written boards: a comparative analysis of artificial intelligence/machine learning performance on neurosurgical board-style questions. J Neurosurg Published online March 1, 2023:1-8. doi:10.3171/2023.2.JNS23419 · DOI
  24. Yeo YH, Samaan JS, Ng WH, et al. Assessing the performance of ChatGPT in answering questions regarding cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Mol Hepatol Published online March 22, 2023. doi:10.3350/CMH.2023.0089 · DOI
  25. Johnson D, Goodman R, Patrinely J, et al. Assessing the Accuracy and Reliability of AI-Generated Medical Responses: An Evaluation of the Chat-GPT Model. Res Sq Published online 2023. doi:10.21203/RS.3.RS-2566942/V1 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Ismail A, Ghorashi NS, Javan R. New Horizons: The Potential Role of OpenAI's ChatGPT in Clinical Radiology. J Am Coll Radiol JACR Published online March 2023. doi:10.1016/ J.JACR.2023.02.025 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Sinha RK, Deb Roy A, Kumar N, Mondal H. Applicability of ChatGPT in Assisting to Solve Higher Order Problems in Pathology. Cureus 2023;15(2). doi:10.7759/CUREUS.35237 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Strunga M, Urban R, Surovková J, Thurzo A. Artificial Intelligence Systems Assisting in the Assessment of the Course and Retention of Orthodontic Treatment. Healthc Basel Switz 2023;11(5). doi:10.3390/HEALTHCARE11050683 · DOI
  29. Ali SR, Dobbs TD, Hutchings HA, Whitaker IS. Using ChatGPT to write patient clinic letters. Lancet Digit Health 2023;5(4). doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00048-1 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Haver HL, Ambinder EB, Bahl M, Oluyemi ET, Jeudy J, Yi PH. Appropriateness of Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening Recommendations Provided by ChatGPT. Radiology Published online April 4, 2023:230424. doi:10.1148/RADIOL.230424 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Alkaissi H, McFarlane SI. Artificial Hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in Scientific Writing. Cureus 2023;15(2). doi:10.7759/CUREUS.35179 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Cascella M, Montomoli J, Bellini V, Bignami E. Evaluating the Feasibility of ChatGPT in Healthcare: An Analysis of Multiple Clinical and Research Scenarios. J Med Syst 2023;47(1). doi:10.1007/S10916-023-01925-4 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Thomas SP. Grappling with the Implications of ChatGPT for Researchers, Clinicians, and Educators. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2023;44(3):141-142. doi:10.1080/01612840.2023.2180982 [PubMed: 36988908] · DOI
  34. Dahmen J, Kayaalp ME, Ollivier M, et al. Artificial intelligence bot ChatGPT in medical research: the potential game changer as a double-edged sword. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA 2023;31(4). doi:10.1007/S00167-023-07355-6 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Will ChatGPT transform healthcare? Nat Med 2023;29(3). doi:10.1038/S41591-023-02289-5 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Bell RH. Surgical council on resident education: a new organization devoted to graduate surgical education. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204(3):341-346. doi:10.1016/J.JAMCOLLSURG.2007.01.002 [PubMed: 17324766] · DOI
  37. Klingensmith ME, Malangoni MA. SCORE provides residents with web-based curriculum for developing key competencies. Bull Am Coll Surg 2013;98(10):10-15.
  38. Moalem J, Edhayan E, Darosa DA, et al. Incorporating the SCORE curriculum and web site into your residency. J Surg Educ 2011;68(4):294-297. doi:10.1016/J.JSURG.2011.02.010 [PubMed: 21708366] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beaulieu-Jones, B. R., Berrigan, M. T., Shah, S., Marwaha, J. S., Lai, S.-L., & Brat, G. A.
Affiliations
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Geisinger College of Health Sciences (US)
  • National Taiwan University Hospital (TW)
Corresponding author
Brat, Gabriel A.
Venue
Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-04
Volume
175
Issue
4
Pages
936-942
ISSN
0039-6060 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4391069701
Cited by
83
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 6
FWCI
3.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Surgery (acceptedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Library of Medicine (T15LM007092)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
large language models, ChatGPT, GPT-4, surgical knowledge assessment, multiple-choice questions, open-ended questions, model error analysis, response consistency, clinical implementation of AI

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review