Performance of AI Models vs. Orthopedic Residents in Turkish Specialty Training Development Exams in Orthopedics.

IF 0.9 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Medical Bulletin of Sisli Etfal Hospital Pub Date : 2025-02-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.14744/SEMB.2025.65289
Enver Ipek, Yusuf Sulek, Bahadir Balkanli
{"title":"Performance of AI Models vs. Orthopedic Residents in Turkish Specialty Training Development Exams in Orthopedics.","authors":"Enver Ipek, Yusuf Sulek, Bahadir Balkanli","doi":"10.14744/SEMB.2025.65289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to advance, its integration into medical education and clinical decision making has attracted considerable attention. Large language models, such as ChatGPT-4o, Gemini, Bing AI, and DeepSeek, have demonstrated potential in supporting healthcare professionals, particularly in specialty training examinations. However, the extent to which these models can independently match or surpass human performance in specialized medical assessments remains uncertain. This study aimed to systematically compare the performance of these AI models with orthopedic residents in the Specialty Training Development Exams (UEGS) conducted between 2010 and 2021, focusing on their accuracy, depth of explanation, and clinical applicability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective comparative study involved presenting the UEGS questions to ChatGPT-4o, Gemini, Bing AI, and DeepSeek. Orthopedic residents who took the exams during 2010-2021 served as the control group. The responses were evaluated for accuracy, explanatory details, and clinical applicability. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS Version 27, with one-way ANOVA and post-hoc tests for performance comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All AI models outperformed orthopedic residents in terms of accuracy. Bing AI demonstrated the highest accuracy rates (64.0% to 93.0%), followed by Gemini (66.0% to 87.0%) and DeepSeek (63.5% to 81.0%). ChatGPT-4o showed the lowest accuracy among AI models (51.0% to 59.5%). Orthopedic residents consistently had the lowest accuracy (43.95% to 53.45%). Bing AI, Gemini, and DeepSeek showed knowledge levels equivalent to over 5 years of medical experience, while ChatGPT-4o ranged from to 2-5 years.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study showed that AI models, especially Bing AI and Gemini, perform at a high level in orthopedic specialty examinations and have potential as educational support tools. However, the lower accuracy of ChatGPT-4o reduced its suitability for assessment. Despite these limitations, AI shows promise in medical education. Future research should focus on improving the reliability, incorporating visual data interpretation, and exploring clinical integration.</p>","PeriodicalId":42218,"journal":{"name":"Medical Bulletin of Sisli Etfal Hospital","volume":"59 2","pages":"151-155"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12314458/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Bulletin of Sisli Etfal Hospital","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14744/SEMB.2025.65289","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to advance, its integration into medical education and clinical decision making has attracted considerable attention. Large language models, such as ChatGPT-4o, Gemini, Bing AI, and DeepSeek, have demonstrated potential in supporting healthcare professionals, particularly in specialty training examinations. However, the extent to which these models can independently match or surpass human performance in specialized medical assessments remains uncertain. This study aimed to systematically compare the performance of these AI models with orthopedic residents in the Specialty Training Development Exams (UEGS) conducted between 2010 and 2021, focusing on their accuracy, depth of explanation, and clinical applicability.

Methods: This retrospective comparative study involved presenting the UEGS questions to ChatGPT-4o, Gemini, Bing AI, and DeepSeek. Orthopedic residents who took the exams during 2010-2021 served as the control group. The responses were evaluated for accuracy, explanatory details, and clinical applicability. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS Version 27, with one-way ANOVA and post-hoc tests for performance comparison.

Results: All AI models outperformed orthopedic residents in terms of accuracy. Bing AI demonstrated the highest accuracy rates (64.0% to 93.0%), followed by Gemini (66.0% to 87.0%) and DeepSeek (63.5% to 81.0%). ChatGPT-4o showed the lowest accuracy among AI models (51.0% to 59.5%). Orthopedic residents consistently had the lowest accuracy (43.95% to 53.45%). Bing AI, Gemini, and DeepSeek showed knowledge levels equivalent to over 5 years of medical experience, while ChatGPT-4o ranged from to 2-5 years.

Conclusion: This study showed that AI models, especially Bing AI and Gemini, perform at a high level in orthopedic specialty examinations and have potential as educational support tools. However, the lower accuracy of ChatGPT-4o reduced its suitability for assessment. Despite these limitations, AI shows promise in medical education. Future research should focus on improving the reliability, incorporating visual data interpretation, and exploring clinical integration.

Abstract Image

人工智能模型与骨科住院医生在土耳其骨科专业培训发展考试中的表现。
随着人工智能(AI)的不断发展,其与医学教育和临床决策的融合引起了人们的广泛关注。chatgpt - 40、Gemini、Bing AI和DeepSeek等大型语言模型已经证明了在支持医疗保健专业人员方面的潜力,特别是在专业培训考试方面。然而,这些模型在多大程度上能够独立匹配或超过人类在专业医学评估中的表现仍然不确定。本研究旨在系统比较这些人工智能模型与骨科住院医师在2010年至2021年进行的专业培训发展考试(UEGS)中的表现,重点关注其准确性、解释深度和临床适用性。方法:本回顾性比较研究包括向chatgpt - 40、Gemini、Bing AI和DeepSeek提交UEGS问题。2010-2021年参加考试的骨科住院医师作为对照组。对回答的准确性、解释细节和临床适用性进行评估。采用SPSS Version 27进行统计分析,采用单因素方差分析和事后检验进行性能比较。结果:所有AI模型的准确率均优于骨科住院医师。Bing AI的准确率最高(64.0%至93.0%),其次是Gemini(66.0%至87.0%)和DeepSeek(63.5%至81.0%)。chatgpt - 40在人工智能模型中准确率最低(51.0% ~ 59.5%)。骨科住院医师的准确率始终最低(43.95% ~ 53.45%)。Bing AI、Gemini和DeepSeek的知识水平相当于5年以上的医疗经验,而chatgpt - 40的知识水平介于2-5年之间。结论:本研究表明,人工智能模型在骨科专业考试中表现优异,尤其是Bing AI和Gemini AI,具有作为教育辅助工具的潜力。然而,chatgpt - 40较低的准确性降低了其评估的适用性。尽管存在这些限制,但人工智能在医学教育中显示出前景。未来的研究应注重提高可靠性,纳入可视化数据解释,探索临床结合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Bulletin of Sisli Etfal Hospital
Medical Bulletin of Sisli Etfal Hospital MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
16.70%
发文量
41
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信