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

Author:

Ali Rohaid,Tang Oliver Y.,Connolly Ian D.,Zadnik Sullivan Patricia L.,Shin John H.,Fridley Jared S.,Asaad Wael F.,Cielo Deus,Oyelese Adetokunbo A.,Doberstein Curtis E.,Gokaslan Ziya L.,Telfeian Albert E.

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundInterest surrounding generative large language models (LLMs) has rapidly grown. While 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 exams and the factors affecting accuracy remain unclear.ObjectiveTo assess the performance of ChatGPT and GPT-4 on a 500-question mock neurosurgical written boards examination.MethodsThe Self-Assessment Neurosurgery Exams (SANS) American Board of Neurological Surgery (ABNS) Self-Assessment Exam 1 was used to evaluate ChatGPT and GPT-4. Questions were in single best answer, multiple-choice format. Chi-squared, Fisher’s exact, and univariable logistic regression tests were employed to assess performance differences in relation to question characteristics.ResultsChatGPT (GPT-3.5) and GPT-4 achieved scores of 73.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 69.3-77.2%) and 83.4% (95% CI: 79.8-86.5%), respectively, relative to the user average of 73.7% (95% CI: 69.6-77.5%). Question bank users and both LLMs exceeded last year’s passing threshold of 69%. While scores between ChatGPT and question bank users were equivalent (P=0.963), GPT-4 outperformed both (bothP<0.001). GPT-4 answered every question answered correctly by ChatGPT and 37.6% (50/133) of remaining incorrect questions correctly. Among twelve question categories, GPT-4 significantly outperformed users in each but performed comparably to ChatGPT in three (Functional, Other General, and Spine) and outperformed both users and ChatGPT for Tumor questions. Increased word count (odds ratio [OR]=0.89 of answering a question correctly per +10 words) and higher-order problem-solving (OR=0.40,P=0.009) were associated with lower accuracy for ChatGPT, but not for GPT-4 (bothP>0.005). Multimodal input was not available at the time of this study so, on questions with image content, ChatGPT and GPT-4 answered 49.5% and 56.8% of questions correctly based upon contextual context clues alone.ConclusionLLMs achieved passing scores on a mock 500-question neurosurgical written board examination, with GPT-4 significantly outperforming ChatGPT.

Publisher

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3