Abstract
Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to dramatically alter healthcare by enhancing how we diagnosis and treat disease. One promising AI model is ChatGPT, a large general-purpose language model trained by OpenAI. The chat interface has shown robust, human-level performance on several professional and academic benchmarks. We sought to probe its performance and stability over time on surgical case questions.
Methods We evaluated the performance of ChatGPT-4 on two surgical knowledge assessments: the Surgical Council on Resident Education (SCORE) and a second commonly used knowledge assessment, referred to as Data-B. Questions were entered in two formats: open-ended and multiple choice. ChatGPT output were assessed for accuracy and insights by surgeon evaluators. We categorized reasons for model errors and the stability of performance on repeat encounters.
Results A total of 167 SCORE and 112 Data-B questions were presented to the ChatGPT interface. ChatGPT correctly answered 71% and 68% of multiple-choice SCORE and Data-B questions, respectively. For both open-ended and multiple-choice questions, approximately two-thirds of ChatGPT responses contained non-obvious insights. Common reasons for inaccurate responses included: inaccurate information in a complex question (n=16, 36.4%); inaccurate information in 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 inaccurate questions; the response accuracy changed for 6/16 questions.
Conclusion Consistent with prior findings, we demonstrate robust near or above human-level performance of ChatGPT within the surgical domain. Unique to this study, we demonstrate a substantial inconsistency in ChatGPT responses with repeat query. This finding warrants future consideration and presents an opportunity to further train these models to provide safe and consistent responses. Without mental and/or conceptual models, it is unclear whether language models such as ChatGPT would be able to safely assist clinicians in providing care.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Dr. Beaulieu-Jones is supported by National Library of Medicine/NIH grant [T15LM007092]
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Dr. Beaulieu-Jones is supported by National Library of Medicine/NIH grant [T15LM007092]
Disclosure Information: Nothing to disclose
Manuscript title
Data Availability
All input to the ChatGPT interface and associated output were recorded. Due to copyright laws, this data is not presented in the current manuscript. However, pending requisite approval from the respective organizations, this data may be shared upon reasonable request.
