Comparative evaluation of artificial intelligence chatbots for real-time guidance during intraoperative anesthetic crises: A simulation-based study.

IF 1.2 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2026-04-02 eCollection Date: 2026-04-01 DOI:10.4103/sja.sja_903_25
Abdallah Ahmed Mezel Al-Azzam, Zaid Alkhateeb, Ahmed Shahin, Isam Bsisu, Ramzi Alaqtash, Eyad Attoun, Hammam Rababa'a
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of artificial intelligence chatbots for real-time guidance during intraoperative anesthetic crises: A simulation-based study.","authors":"Abdallah Ahmed Mezel Al-Azzam, Zaid Alkhateeb, Ahmed Shahin, Isam Bsisu, Ramzi Alaqtash, Eyad Attoun, Hammam Rababa'a","doi":"10.4103/sja.sja_903_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are increasingly used in healthcare, but their ability to interpret anesthetic monitoring data during intraoperative crises remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate AI chatbots' responses to simulated anesthetic emergencies, with a focus on visual monitor interpretation compared to contextual case information.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This simulation-based study was conducted using a high-fidelity patient monitor. Twenty intraoperative emergencies were designed as static monitor images with minimal clinical context. Five AI platforms, ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, and DeepSeek, were tested. Each scenario was submitted in a separate, new conversation with no advanced reasoning tools enabled. Six blinded evaluators scored 100 responses using the validated CLEAR tool. The primary outcome was the mean total score per chatbot; secondary outcomes included domain-specific scores and differences between visual and contextual scenarios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT achieved the highest mean score (4.4 ± 0.6), outperforming other platforms across all CLEAR domains (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Its accuracy was consistent between contextual (4.6 ± 0.3) and visual (4.1 ± 0.9) scenarios. DeepSeek scored the lowest overall score (2.7 ± 1.1), and had a mean 2.3 ± 1.1 in \"lack of false information\", often due to misinterpreting monitor values, reducing its visual scenario performance. Overall, contextual scenarios scores were higher than visual ones across all platforms.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among AI chatbots, ChatGPT demonstrated the most consistent and guideline-concordant responses to simulated anesthetic crises as of March 2025. This study provides a benchmark for evaluating clinical AI performance and supports the selective integration of such tools in anesthesia decision-making workflows.</p>","PeriodicalId":21533,"journal":{"name":"Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":"20 2","pages":"362-368"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13099052/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.sja_903_25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are increasingly used in healthcare, but their ability to interpret anesthetic monitoring data during intraoperative crises remains unclear.

Objective: To evaluate AI chatbots' responses to simulated anesthetic emergencies, with a focus on visual monitor interpretation compared to contextual case information.

Methods: This simulation-based study was conducted using a high-fidelity patient monitor. Twenty intraoperative emergencies were designed as static monitor images with minimal clinical context. Five AI platforms, ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, and DeepSeek, were tested. Each scenario was submitted in a separate, new conversation with no advanced reasoning tools enabled. Six blinded evaluators scored 100 responses using the validated CLEAR tool. The primary outcome was the mean total score per chatbot; secondary outcomes included domain-specific scores and differences between visual and contextual scenarios.

Results: ChatGPT achieved the highest mean score (4.4 ± 0.6), outperforming other platforms across all CLEAR domains (P < 0.001). Its accuracy was consistent between contextual (4.6 ± 0.3) and visual (4.1 ± 0.9) scenarios. DeepSeek scored the lowest overall score (2.7 ± 1.1), and had a mean 2.3 ± 1.1 in "lack of false information", often due to misinterpreting monitor values, reducing its visual scenario performance. Overall, contextual scenarios scores were higher than visual ones across all platforms.

Conclusion: Among AI chatbots, ChatGPT demonstrated the most consistent and guideline-concordant responses to simulated anesthetic crises as of March 2025. This study provides a benchmark for evaluating clinical AI performance and supports the selective integration of such tools in anesthesia decision-making workflows.

人工智能聊天机器人在术中麻醉危机中实时指导的比较评估:一项基于模拟的研究。
背景:人工智能(AI)聊天机器人越来越多地应用于医疗保健领域,但它们在术中危机期间解释麻醉监测数据的能力尚不清楚。目的:评估人工智能聊天机器人对模拟麻醉紧急情况的反应,重点是将视觉监视器解释与情境病例信息进行比较。方法:本研究采用高保真病人监护仪进行模拟实验。20例术中紧急情况被设计为静态监测图像,具有最小的临床背景。五个人工智能平台,ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot和DeepSeek进行了测试。每个场景都在单独的新会话中提交,没有启用高级推理工具。六名盲法评估者使用经过验证的CLEAR工具对100个回答进行评分。主要结果是每个聊天机器人的平均总分;次要结果包括特定领域的得分以及视觉和上下文场景之间的差异。结果:ChatGPT取得了最高的平均得分(4.4±0.6),优于其他平台在所有CLEAR域(P < 0.001)。其准确度在情境情景(4.6±0.3)和视觉情景(4.1±0.9)之间是一致的。DeepSeek的综合得分最低(2.7±1.1),在“缺乏虚假信息”方面的平均得分为2.3±1.1,这通常是由于对监视器值的误解,降低了其视觉场景性能。总体而言,在所有平台上,情境情境得分都高于视觉情境得分。结论:截至2025年3月,在人工智能聊天机器人中,ChatGPT对模拟麻醉危机的反应最为一致和符合指南。本研究为评估临床人工智能性能提供了一个基准,并支持在麻醉决策工作流程中选择性地整合这些工具。
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
141
审稿时长
36 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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书