Solving Complex Pediatric Surgical Case Studies: A Comparative Analysis of Copilot, ChatGPT-4, and Experienced Pediatric Surgeons' Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has led to notable advancements across multiple sectors, including medicine. Yet, their effect in pediatric surgery remains largely unexplored. This study aims to assess the ability of the artificial intelligence (AI) models ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Copilot to propose diagnostic procedures, primary and differential diagnoses, as well as answer clinical questions using complex clinical case vignettes of classic pediatric surgical diseases. We conducted the study in April 2024. We evaluated the performance of LLMs using 13 complex clinical case vignettes of pediatric surgical diseases and compared responses to a human cohort of experienced pediatric surgeons. Additionally, pediatric surgeons rated the diagnostic recommendations of LLMs for completeness and accuracy. To determine differences in performance, we performed statistical analyses. ChatGPT-4 achieved a higher test score (52.1%) compared to Copilot (47.9%) but less than pediatric surgeons (68.8%). Overall differences in performance between ChatGPT-4, Copilot, and pediatric surgeons were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.01). ChatGPT-4 demonstrated superior performance in generating differential diagnoses compared to Copilot (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found between the AI models regarding suggestions for diagnostics and primary diagnosis. Overall, the recommendations of LLMs were rated as average by pediatric surgeons. This study reveals significant limitations in the performance of AI models in pediatric surgery. Although LLMs exhibit potential across various areas, their reliability and accuracy in handling clinical decision-making tasks is limited. Further research is needed to improve AI capabilities and establish its usefulness in the clinical setting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".