• Ahmet Kıvanç Menekşeoğlu and Enes Efe İş.
• University of Health Sciences, Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Education and Training Hospital, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation - İstanbul, Turkey.
• Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2024 Jan 1; 70 (7): e20240241e20240241.

Objecti̇vesThe aim of this study was to compare the performance of artificial intelligence models ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Google Bard in answering Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation board-style questions, assessing their capabilities in medical education and potential clinical applications.MethodsA comparative cross-sectional study was conducted using the PMR100, an example question set for the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Part I exam, focusing on artificial intelligence models' ability to answer and categorize questions by difficulty. The study evaluated the artificial intelligence models and analyzed them for accuracy, reliability, and alignment with difficulty levels determined by physiatrists.ResultsChatGPT-4 led with a 74% success rate, followed by Bard at 66%, and ChatGPT-3.5 at 63.8%. Bard showed remarkable answer consistency, altering responses in only 1% of cases. The difficulty assessment by ChatGPT models closely matched that of physiatrists. The study highlighted nuanced differences in artificial intelligence models' performance across various Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation subfields.ConclusionThe study illustrates the potential of artificial intelligence in medical education and clinical settings, with ChatGPT-4 showing a slight edge in performance. It emphasizes the importance of artificial intelligence as a supportive tool for physiatrists, despite the need for careful oversight of artificial intelligence-generated responses to ensure patient safety.

8 keywords...

hide…