Evaluating the concordance of ChatGPT and physician recommendations for bariatric surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare prompts the need to measure its proficiency relative to human experts. This study evaluates the proficiency of ChatGPT, an OpenAI language model, in offering guidance concerning bariatric surgery compared to bariatric surgeons. Five clinical scenarios representative of diverse bariatric surgery situations were given to American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS)-accredited bariatric surgeons and ChatGPT. Both groups proposed medical or surgical management for the patients depicted in each scenario. The outcomes from both the surgeons and ChatGPT were examined and matched with the clinical benchmarks set by the ASMBS. There was a high degree of agreement between ChatGPT and physicians on the three simpler clinical scenarios. There was a positive correlation between physicians' and ChatGPT answers for not recommending surgery. ChatGPT's advice aligned with ASMBS guidelines 60% of the time, in contrast to bariatric surgeons, who consistently aligned with the guidelines 100% of the time. ChatGPT showcases potential in offering guidance on bariatric surgery, but it does not have the comprehensive and personalized perspective that doctors exhibit consistently. Enhancing AI's training on intricate patient situations will bolster its role in the medical field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.234 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".