Evaluating the Evolution of ChatGPT as an Information Resource in Shoulder and Elbow Surgery.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Benjamin Nieves-Lopez, Alexandra R Bechtle, Jennifer Traverse, Christopher Klifto, Bradley S Schoch, Keith T Aziz
{"title":"Evaluating the Evolution of ChatGPT as an Information Resource in Shoulder and Elbow Surgery.","authors":"Benjamin Nieves-Lopez, Alexandra R Bechtle, Jennifer Traverse, Christopher Klifto, Bradley S Schoch, Keith T Aziz","doi":"10.3928/01477447-20250123-03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance and evolution of Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT; OpenAI) as a resource for shoulder and elbow surgery information by assessing its accuracy on the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons shoulder-elbow self-assessment questions. We hypothesized that both ChatGPT models would demonstrate proficiency and that there would be significant improvement with progressive iterations.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 200 questions were selected from the 2019 and 2021 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons shoulder-elbow self-assessment questions. ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 were used to evaluate all questions. Questions with non-text data were excluded (114 questions). Remaining questions were input into ChatGPT and categorized as follows: anatomy, arthroplasty, basic science, instability, miscellaneous, nonoperative, and trauma. ChatGPT's performances were quantified and compared across categories with chi-square tests. The continuing medical education credit threshold of 50% was used to determine proficiency. Statistical significance was set at <i>P</i><.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 answered 52.3% and 73.3% of the questions correctly, respectively (<i>P</i>=.003). ChatGPT 3.5 performed significantly better in the instability category (<i>P</i>=.037). ChatGPT 4's performance did not significantly differ across categories (<i>P</i>=.841). ChatGPT 4 performed significantly better than ChatGPT 3.5 in all categories except instability and miscellaneous.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 exceeded the proficiency threshold. ChatGPT 4 performed better than ChatGPT 3.5, showing an increased capability to correctly answer shoulder and elbow-focused questions. Further refinement of ChatGPT's training may improve its performance and utility as a resource. Currently, ChatGPT remains unable to answer questions at a high enough accuracy to replace clinical decision-making. [<i>Orthopedics</i>. 202x;4x(x):xx-xx.].</p>","PeriodicalId":19631,"journal":{"name":"Orthopedics","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20250123-03","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance and evolution of Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT; OpenAI) as a resource for shoulder and elbow surgery information by assessing its accuracy on the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons shoulder-elbow self-assessment questions. We hypothesized that both ChatGPT models would demonstrate proficiency and that there would be significant improvement with progressive iterations.

Materials and methods: A total of 200 questions were selected from the 2019 and 2021 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons shoulder-elbow self-assessment questions. ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 were used to evaluate all questions. Questions with non-text data were excluded (114 questions). Remaining questions were input into ChatGPT and categorized as follows: anatomy, arthroplasty, basic science, instability, miscellaneous, nonoperative, and trauma. ChatGPT's performances were quantified and compared across categories with chi-square tests. The continuing medical education credit threshold of 50% was used to determine proficiency. Statistical significance was set at P<.05.

Results: ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 answered 52.3% and 73.3% of the questions correctly, respectively (P=.003). ChatGPT 3.5 performed significantly better in the instability category (P=.037). ChatGPT 4's performance did not significantly differ across categories (P=.841). ChatGPT 4 performed significantly better than ChatGPT 3.5 in all categories except instability and miscellaneous.

Conclusion: ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 exceeded the proficiency threshold. ChatGPT 4 performed better than ChatGPT 3.5, showing an increased capability to correctly answer shoulder and elbow-focused questions. Further refinement of ChatGPT's training may improve its performance and utility as a resource. Currently, ChatGPT remains unable to answer questions at a high enough accuracy to replace clinical decision-making. [Orthopedics. 202x;4x(x):xx-xx.].

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Orthopedics
Orthopedics 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
160
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: For over 40 years, Orthopedics, a bimonthly peer-reviewed journal, has been the preferred choice of orthopedic surgeons for clinically relevant information on all aspects of adult and pediatric orthopedic surgery and treatment. Edited by Robert D''Ambrosia, MD, Chairman of the Department of Orthopedics at the University of Colorado, Denver, and former President of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, as well as an Editorial Board of over 100 international orthopedists, Orthopedics is the source to turn to for guidance in your practice. The journal offers access to current articles, as well as several years of archived content. Highlights also include Blue Ribbon articles published full text in print and online, as well as Tips & Techniques posted with every issue.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信