Performance of ChatGPT, GPT-4, and Google Bard on a Neurosurgery Oral Boards Preparation Question Bank

Author:

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

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundGeneral large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT (GPT-3.5), have demonstrated capability to pass multiple-choice medical board examinations. However, comparative accuracy of different LLMs and LLM performance on assessments of predominantly higher-order management questions is poorly understood.ObjectiveTo assess performance of three LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Google Bard) on a question bank designed specifically for neurosurgery oral boards examination preparation.MethodsThe 149-question Self-Assessment Neurosurgery Exam (SANS) Indications Exam was used to query LLM accuracy. Questions were input in a single best answer, multiple-choice format. Chi-squared, Fisher’s exact, and univariable logistic regression tests assessed differences in performance by question characteristics.ResultsOn a question bank with predominantly higher-order questions (85.2%), ChatGPT (GPT-3.5) and GPT-4 answered 62.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 54.1-70.1%) and 82.6% (95% CI: 75.2-88.1%) of questions correctly, respectively. In contrast, Bard scored 44.2% (66/149, 95% CI: 36.2-52.6%). GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 demonstrated significantly higher scores than Bard (bothP<0.01), and GPT-4 significantly outperformed GPT-3.5 (P=0.023). Among six subspecialties, GPT-4 had significantly higher accuracy in the Spine category relative to GPT-3.5 and in four categories relative to Bard (allP<0.01). Incorporation of higher-order problem solving was associated with lower question accuracy for GPT-3.5 (OR=0.80,P=0.042) and Bard (OR=0.76,P=0.014), but not GPT-4 (OR=0.86,P=0.085). GPT-4’s performance on imaging-related questions surpassed GPT-3.5’s (68.6% vs. 47.1%,P=0.044) and was comparable to Bard’s (68.6% vs. 66.7%,P=1.000). However, GPT-4 demonstrated significantly lower rates of “hallucination” on imaging-related questions than both GPT-3.5 (2.3% vs. 57.1%,P<0.001) and Bard (2.3% vs. 27.3%,P=0.002). Lack of question text description for imaging predicted significantly higher odds of hallucination for GPT-3.5 (OR=1.45,P=0.012) and Bard (OR=2.09,P<0.001).ConclusionOn a question bank of predominantly higher-order management case scenarios intended for neurosurgery oral boards preparation, GPT-4 achieved a score of 82.6%, outperforming ChatGPT and Google’s Bard.

Publisher

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Reference9 articles.

1. Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models;PLOS Digit Health,2023

2. Choi JH , Hickman KE , Monahan A , Schwarcz D. ChatGPT Goes to Law School. Minnesota Legal Studies. 2023;23(3).

3. Terwiesch C. Would Chat GPT3 Get a Wharton MBA? A Prediction Based on Its Performance in the Operations Management Course Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania;2023.

4. Ali R , Tang OY , Connolly I , et al. Letter: Performance of ChatGPT on Neurosurgery Written Board Examinations. Neurosurgery. 2023;In Press.

5. OpenAI. GPT-4 Technical Report. 2023; https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf.6.

Cited by 28 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

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