• Adnan A Khan, Rayaan Yunus, Mahad Sohail, Taha A Rehman, Shirin Saeed, Yifan Bu, Cullen D Jackson, Aidan Sharkey, Feroze Mahmood, and Robina Matyal.
• Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School Boston, MA.
• J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 2024 May 1; 38 (5): 125112591251-1259.

AbstractNew artificial intelligence tools have been developed that have implications for medical usage. Large language models (LLMs), such as the widely used ChatGPT developed by OpenAI, have not been explored in the context of anesthesiology education. Understanding the reliability of various publicly available LLMs for medical specialties could offer insight into their understanding of the physiology, pharmacology, and practical applications of anesthesiology. An exploratory prospective review was conducted using 3 commercially available LLMs--OpenAI's ChatGPT GPT-3.5 version (GPT-3.5), OpenAI's ChatGPT GPT-4 (GPT-4), and Google's Bard--on questions from a widely used anesthesia board examination review book. Of the 884 eligible questions, the overall correct answer rates were 47.9% for GPT-3.5, 69.4% for GPT-4, and 45.2% for Bard. GPT-4 exhibited significantly higher performance than both GPT-3.5 and Bard (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). None of the LLMs met the criteria required to secure American Board of Anesthesiology certification, according to the 70% passing score approximation. GPT-4 significantly outperformed GPT-3.5 and Bard in terms of overall performance, but lacked consistency in providing explanations that aligned with scientific and medical consensus. Although GPT-4 shows promise, current LLMs are not sufficiently advanced to answer anesthesiology board examination questions with passing success. Further iterations and domain-specific training may enhance their utility in medical education.Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

14 keywords...

hide…