⚡ Quick Summary
A recent study evaluated the accuracy of ChatGPT in answering the Gynaecological Endoscopic Surgical Education and Assessment (GESEA) Level 1-2 knowledge tests, revealing a 59% accuracy rate overall. This highlights the importance of validating AI-generated responses in medical education and practice.
🔍 Key Details
- 📊 Dataset: 100 multiple-choice questions from GESEA certifications 1 and 2
- 🧩 Evaluation: Responses graded by expert gynaecologists
- ⚙️ Technology: ChatGPT 3.5
- 🏆 Performance: 59% overall accuracy, 64% for Level 1, 54% for Level 2
🔑 Key Takeaways
- 🤖 ChatGPT is increasingly utilized in medical education and research.
- 📉 Accuracy concerns persist regarding AI-generated information.
- 🔍 Comprehensive explanations were provided in 64% of responses.
- 📚 Level 1 questions yielded better accuracy than Level 2.
- ⚖️ Ethical considerations are crucial for the responsible use of AI in healthcare.
- 🔮 Future research is needed to validate AI outputs in specialized fields.
- 🌐 Study published in Facts Views Vis Obgyn, 2024.
📚 Background
The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical education has opened new avenues for learning and assessment. However, the reliability of AI-generated content remains a significant concern, particularly in fields requiring high accuracy, such as gynaecology. The introduction of ChatGPT by OpenAI has sparked interest in its potential applications, but its accuracy and ethical implications must be thoroughly examined.
🗒️ Study
This study aimed to assess the accuracy of ChatGPT in answering the GESEA Level 1-2 knowledge tests. A total of 100 multiple-choice questions were presented to the AI model, which was tasked with selecting the correct answers and providing explanations. Expert gynaecologists then evaluated the accuracy of these explanations, providing a comprehensive assessment of the AI’s performance.
📈 Results
The findings revealed that ChatGPT achieved an overall accuracy of 59% in its responses. Notably, it performed better on GESEA Level 1 questions, with an accuracy of 64%, compared to 54% for Level 2. Additionally, the AI provided comprehensive explanations for 64% of its answers, indicating a moderate level of understanding of the material.
🌍 Impact and Implications
The results of this study underscore the potential of AI tools like ChatGPT in enhancing medical education and research. However, the 59% accuracy rate raises important questions about the reliability of AI-generated information in clinical settings. As AI continues to evolve, it is essential to prioritize accuracy validation and ethical considerations to ensure that these technologies support evidence-based practice effectively.
🔮 Conclusion
This study highlights the versatility of ChatGPT as a tool in medicine and research, while also emphasizing the need for rigorous validation of its outputs. With a 59% correct response rate, it is clear that while AI can be a valuable resource, its limitations must be acknowledged. Future research should focus on improving the accuracy of AI in specialized fields, ensuring that these technologies can be trusted in critical healthcare applications.
💬 Your comments
What are your thoughts on the use of AI in medical education? Do you believe tools like ChatGPT can be reliable in clinical settings? 💬 Share your insights in the comments below or connect with us on social media:
Artificial Intelligence, the ChatGPT Large Language Model: Assessing the Accuracy of Responses to the Gynaecological Endoscopic Surgical Education and Assessment (GESEA) Level 1-2 knowledge tests.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2022, OpenAI launched ChatGPT 3.5, which is now widely used in medical education, training, and research. Despite its valuable use for the generation of information, concerns persist about its authenticity and accuracy. Its undisclosed information source and outdated dataset pose risks of misinformation. Although it is widely used, AI-generated text inaccuracies raise doubts about its reliability. The ethical use of such technologies is crucial to uphold scientific accuracy in research.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the accuracy of ChatGPT in doing GESEA tests 1 and 2.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 100 multiple-choice theoretical questions from GESEA certifications 1 and 2 were presented to ChatGPT, requesting the selection of the correct answer along with an explanation. Expert gynaecologists evaluated and graded the explanations for accuracy.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ChatGPT showed a 59% accuracy in responses, with 64% providing comprehensive explanations. It performed better in GESEA Level 1 (64% accuracy) than in GESEA Level 2 (54% accuracy) questions.
CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT is a versatile tool in medicine and research, offering knowledge, information, and promoting evidence-based practice. Despite its widespread use, its accuracy has not been validated yet. This study found a 59% correct response rate, highlighting the need for accuracy validation and ethical use considerations. Future research should investigate ChatGPT’s truthfulness in subspecialty fields such as gynaecologic oncology and compare different versions of chatbot for continuous improvement.
WHAT IS NEW?: Artificial intelligence (AI) has a great potential in scientific research. However, the validity of outputs remains unverified. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of responses generated by ChatGPT to enhance the critical use of this tool.
Author: [‘Pavone M’, ‘Palmieri L’, ‘Bizzarri N’, ‘Rosati A’, ‘Campolo F’, ‘Innocenzi C’, ‘Taliento C’, ‘Restaino S’, ‘Catena U’, ‘Vizzielli G’, ‘Akladios C’, ‘Ianieri MM’, ‘Marescaux J’, ‘Campo R’, ‘Fanfani F’, ‘Scambia G’]
Journal: Facts Views Vis Obgyn
Citation: Pavone M, et al. Artificial Intelligence, the ChatGPT Large Language Model: Assessing the Accuracy of Responses to the Gynaecological Endoscopic Surgical Education and Assessment (GESEA) Level 1-2 knowledge tests. Artificial Intelligence, the ChatGPT Large Language Model: Assessing the Accuracy of Responses to the Gynaecological Endoscopic Surgical Education and Assessment (GESEA) Level 1-2 knowledge tests. 2024; 16:449-456. doi: 10.52054/FVVO.16.4.052