Abstract
Objectives This study compares the performance of the artificial intelligence (AI) platform Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) to Otolaryngology trainees on board style exam questions.
Methods We administered a set of 30 Otolaryngology board style questions to medical students (MS) and Otolaryngology residents (OR). 31 MSs and 17 ORs completed the questionnaire. The same test was administered to ChatGPT version 3.5, five times. Comparisons of performance were achieved using a one-way ANOVA with Tukey Post Hoc test, along with a regression analysis to explore the relationship between education level and performance.
Results The average scores increased each year from MS1 to PGY5. A one-way ANOVA revealed that ChatGPT outperformed trainee years MS1, MS2, and MS3 (p = <0.001, 0.003, and 0.019, respectively). PGY4 and PGY5 otolaryngology residents outperformed ChatGPT (p = 0.033 and 0.002, respectively). For years MS4, PGY1, PGY2, and PGY3 there was no statistical difference between trainee scores and ChatGPT (p = .104, .996, and 1.000, respectively).
Conclusion ChatGPT can outperform lower-level medical trainees on Otolaryngology board-style exam but still lacks the ability to outperform higher-level trainees. These questions primarily test rote memorization of medical facts; in contrast, the art of practicing medicine is predicated on the synthesis of complex presentations of disease and multilayered application of knowledge of the healing process. Given that upper-level trainees outperform ChatGPT, it is unlikely that ChatGPT, in its current form will provide significant clinical utility over an Otolaryngologist.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Indiana University IRB
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files
