Abstract
Background General large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT (GPT-3.5), have demonstrated capability to pass multiple-choice medical board examinations. However, comparative accuracy of different LLMs and LLM performance on assessments of predominantly higher-order management questions is poorly understood.
Objective To assess performance of three LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Google Bard) on a question bank designed specifically for neurosurgery oral boards examination preparation.
Methods The 149-question Self-Assessment Neurosurgery Exam (SANS) Indications Exam was used to query LLM accuracy. Questions were input in a single best answer, multiple-choice format. Chi-squared, Fisher’s exact, and univariable logistic regression tests assessed differences in performance by question characteristics.
Results On a question bank with predominantly higher-order questions (85.2%), ChatGPT (GPT-3.5) and GPT-4 answered 62.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 54.1-70.1%) and 82.6% (95% CI: 75.2-88.1%) of questions correctly, respectively. In contrast, Bard scored 44.2% (66/149, 95% CI: 36.2-52.6%). GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 demonstrated significantly higher scores than Bard (both P<0.01), and GPT-4 significantly outperformed GPT-3.5 (P=0.023). Among six subspecialties, GPT-4 had significantly higher accuracy in the Spine category relative to GPT-3.5 and in four categories relative to Bard (all P<0.01). Incorporation of higher-order problem solving was associated with lower question accuracy for GPT-3.5 (OR=0.80, P=0.042) and Bard (OR=0.76, P=0.014), but not GPT-4 (OR=0.86, P=0.085). GPT-4’s performance on imaging-related questions surpassed GPT-3.5’s (68.6% vs. 47.1%, P=0.044) and was comparable to Bard’s (68.6% vs. 66.7%, P=1.000). However, GPT-4 demonstrated significantly lower rates of “hallucination” on imaging-related questions than both GPT-3.5 (2.3% vs. 57.1%, P<0.001) and Bard (2.3% vs. 27.3%, P=0.002). Lack of question text description for imaging predicted significantly higher odds of hallucination for GPT-3.5 (OR=1.45, P=0.012) and Bard (OR=2.09, P<0.001).
Conclusion On a question bank of predominantly higher-order management case scenarios intended for neurosurgery oral boards preparation, GPT-4 achieved a score of 82.6%, outperforming ChatGPT and Google’s Bard.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
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
Footnotes
Data Availability Statement: Due to the proprietary nature of the dataset used for this study (Self Assessment Neurosurgery Exam: Indications Exam), the authors are unable to post the raw data used for the analysis. However, the authors are able to share any collected data (ex. word count, question classification, responses, etc.) on request to other investigators who have access to this self-assessment exam.
Code Availability Statement: Code used for this study’s analyses was adapted from earlier scripts deposited in a public GitHub repository (https://github.com/oliverytang/chatgpt_neurosurgery).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper. However, we would like to acknowledge and thank the Congress of Neurological Surgeons for their development and dissemination of the mock exam questions used for this study.
Disclosure of Funding: The authors have no funding relevant to the conduct of this study to disclose.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
