Cited by 202Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationSurgical Simulation and TrainingInnovations in Medical Education

ChatGPT goes to the operating room: evaluating GPT-4 performance and its potential in surgical education and training in the era of large language models

Open access
Oh, Namkee, Choi, Gyu-Seong, Lee, Woo Yong·2023·Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the performance of ChatGPT, specifically the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models, in understanding complex surgical clinical information and its potential implications for surgical education and training. Methods: The dataset comprised 280 questions from the Korean general surgery board exams conducted between 2020 and 2022. Both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models were evaluated, and their performances were compared using McNemar test. Results: GPT-3.5 achieved an overall accuracy of 46.8%, while GPT-4 demonstrated a significant improvement with an overall accuracy of 76.4%, indicating a notable difference in performance between the models (P < 0.001). GPT-4 also exhibited consistent performance across all subspecialties, with accuracy rates ranging from 63.6% to 83.3%. Conclusion: ChatGPT, particularly GPT-4, demonstrates a remarkable ability to understand complex surgical clinical information, achieving an accuracy rate of 76.4% on the Korean general surgery board exam. However, it is important to recognize the limitations of large language models and ensure that they are used in conjunction with human expertise and judgment.

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 · 10.4174/astr.2023.104.5.269

Cites

12 of 13 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?

  • GAI demonstrates potential in multidisciplinary knowledge acquisition within medical education by providing high-quality knowledge across various medical subfields.

    “GAI demonstrates potential in multidisciplinary knowledge acquisition within medical education by providing high-quality knowledge across various medical subfields [87-94].”

    From Applications, Challenges, and Prospects of Generative Artificial Intelligence Empowering Medical Education: Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [88]

    The Results report that GPT-4 answered 76.4% of Korean general surgery board-exam questions correctly, with results across ten surgical subspecialties. The Discussion connects this performance to potential uses in surgical education. This supports knowledge acquisition across surgical subspecialties, but does not establish high-quality knowledge across medical subfields more broadly. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Only a handful of studies on generative AI performance on standardized tests delved into potential implications; those that did posited that this technology could be useful for self-directed learning or exam preparation, but none provided an explicit exploration of this process.

    “Only a handful of these studies delved into the potential implications of generative AI's performance on these tests [8,33]. Those that did posited that this technology could be useful for self-directed learning or exam preparation [8,11,34]. However, none of these studies provided an explicit exploration of this process.”

    From Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: Scoping Review (2023) · cites this paper as [11]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • GPT-4 consistently performs well across different subspecialties.

    “Notably, GPT-4 consistently performs well across different subspecialties, suggesting its capability to comprehend complex clinical information and enhance surgical education and training.”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [143]

  • GPT-3.5 achieved 46.8% overall accuracy and GPT-4 achieved 76.4% on understanding surgical clinical information, showing a significant performance difference.

    “The results indicate an overall accuracy of 46.8% for GPT-3.5 and 76.4% for GPT-4, demonstrating a significant performance difference between the two models.”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [143]

  • Several studies focused on the role of generative AI models in tests of medical knowledge.

    “Several studies focused on the role of generative AI models in tests of medical knowledge [8-11,13,26,27,31-39].”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oh, N., Choi, G.-S., & Lee, W. Y.
Affiliations
Samsung Medical Center (KR)
Corresponding author
Lee, Woo Yong
Venue
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research
Publisher
XMLink
Published
2023
Volume
104
Issue
5
Pages
269
ISSN
  • 2288-6575 (ISSN-L)
  • 2288-6796
OpenAlex
W4372047097
Cited by
201
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 34
FWCI
8.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Samsung
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
ChatGPT, GPT-4, large language models, surgical training, model performance comparison, GPT-3.5, artificial intelligence in healthcare

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