Evaluation of Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer and Microsoft Copilot Performance on the American Society of Surgery of the Hand Self-Assessment Examinations

Q3 Medicine
Taylor R. Rakauskas BS , Antonio Da Costa BS , Camberly Moriconi BS , Gurnoor Gill BA , Jeffrey W. Kwong MD MS , Nicolas Lee MD
{"title":"Evaluation of Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer and Microsoft Copilot Performance on the American Society of Surgery of the Hand Self-Assessment Examinations","authors":"Taylor R. Rakauskas BS ,&nbsp;Antonio Da Costa BS ,&nbsp;Camberly Moriconi BS ,&nbsp;Gurnoor Gill BA ,&nbsp;Jeffrey W. Kwong MD MS ,&nbsp;Nicolas Lee MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jhsg.2024.10.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Artificial intelligence advancements have the potential to transform medical education and patient care. The increasing popularity of large language models has raised important questions regarding their accuracy and agreement with human users. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), versions 3.5 and 4, as well as Microsoft Copilot, which is powered by ChatGPT-4, on self-assessment examination questions for hand surgery and compare results between versions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Input included 1,000 questions across 5 years (2015–2019) of self-assessment examinations provided by the American Society of Surgery of the Hand. The primary outcomes included correctness, the percentage concordance relative to other users, and whether an additional prompt was required. Secondary outcomes included accuracy according to question type and difficulty.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>All question formats including image-based questions were used for the analysis. ChatGPT-3.5 correctly answered 51.6% and ChatGPT-4 correctly answered 63.4%, which was a statistically significant difference. Microsoft Copilot correctly answered 59.9% and outperformed ChatGPT-3.5 but scored significantly lower than ChatGPT-4. However, ChatGPT-3.5 sided with an average of 72.2% users when correct and 62.1% when incorrect, compared to an average of 67.0% and 53.2% users, respectively, for ChatGPT-4. Microsoft Copilot sided with an average of 79.7% users when correct and 52.1% when incorrect. The highest scoring subject was <em>Miscellaneous</em>, and the lowest scoring subject was <em>Neuromuscular</em> in all versions.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>In this study, ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Copilot perform better on the hand surgery subspecialty examinations than did ChatGPT-3.5. Microsoft Copilot was more accurate than ChatGPT3.5 but less accurate than ChatGPT4. The ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Copilot were able to “pass” the 2015–2019 American Society for Surgery of the Hand self-assessment examinations.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical Relevance</h3><div>While holding promise within medical education, caution should be used with large language models as more detailed evaluation of consistency is needed. Future studies should explore how these models perform across multiple trials and contexts to truly assess their reliability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36920,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online","volume":"7 1","pages":"Pages 23-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589514124001907","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Artificial intelligence advancements have the potential to transform medical education and patient care. The increasing popularity of large language models has raised important questions regarding their accuracy and agreement with human users. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), versions 3.5 and 4, as well as Microsoft Copilot, which is powered by ChatGPT-4, on self-assessment examination questions for hand surgery and compare results between versions.

Methods

Input included 1,000 questions across 5 years (2015–2019) of self-assessment examinations provided by the American Society of Surgery of the Hand. The primary outcomes included correctness, the percentage concordance relative to other users, and whether an additional prompt was required. Secondary outcomes included accuracy according to question type and difficulty.

Results

All question formats including image-based questions were used for the analysis. ChatGPT-3.5 correctly answered 51.6% and ChatGPT-4 correctly answered 63.4%, which was a statistically significant difference. Microsoft Copilot correctly answered 59.9% and outperformed ChatGPT-3.5 but scored significantly lower than ChatGPT-4. However, ChatGPT-3.5 sided with an average of 72.2% users when correct and 62.1% when incorrect, compared to an average of 67.0% and 53.2% users, respectively, for ChatGPT-4. Microsoft Copilot sided with an average of 79.7% users when correct and 52.1% when incorrect. The highest scoring subject was Miscellaneous, and the lowest scoring subject was Neuromuscular in all versions.

Conclusions

In this study, ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Copilot perform better on the hand surgery subspecialty examinations than did ChatGPT-3.5. Microsoft Copilot was more accurate than ChatGPT3.5 but less accurate than ChatGPT4. The ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Copilot were able to “pass” the 2015–2019 American Society for Surgery of the Hand self-assessment examinations.

Clinical Relevance

While holding promise within medical education, caution should be used with large language models as more detailed evaluation of consistency is needed. Future studies should explore how these models perform across multiple trials and contexts to truly assess their reliability.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
111
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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