Role of Artificial Intelligence in Surgical Training by Assessing GPT-4 and GPT-4o on the Japan Surgical Board Examination With Text-Only and Image-Accompanied Questions: Performance Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence and large language models (LLMs)-particularly GPT-4 and GPT-4o-have demonstrated high correct-answer rates in medical examinations. GPT-4o has enhanced diagnostic capabilities, advanced image processing, and updated knowledge. Japanese surgeons face critical challenges, including a declining workforce, regional health care disparities, and work-hour-related challenges. Nonetheless, although LLMs could be beneficial in surgical education, no studies have yet assessed GPT-4o's surgical knowledge or its performance in the field of surgery. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the potential of GPT-4 and GPT-4o in surgical education by using them to take the Japan Surgical Board Examination (JSBE), which includes both textual questions and medical images-such as surgical and computed tomography scans-to comprehensively assess their surgical knowledge. Methods: We used 297 multiple-choice questions from the 2021-2023 JSBEs. The questions were in Japanese, and 104 of them included images. First, the GPT-4 and GPT-4o responses to only the textual questions were collected via OpenAI's application programming interface to evaluate their correct-answer rate. Subsequently, the correct-answer rate of their responses to questions that included images was assessed by inputting both text and images. Results: The overall correct-answer rates of GPT-4o and GPT-4 for the text-only questions were 78% (231/297) and 55% (163/297), respectively, with GPT-4o outperforming GPT-4 by 23% (P=<.01). By contrast, there was no significant improvement in the correct-answer rate for questions that included images compared with the results for the text-only questions. Conclusions: GPT-4o outperformed GPT-4 on the JSBE. However, the results of the LLMs were lower than those of the examinees. Despite the capabilities of LLMs, image recognition remains a challenge for them, and their clinical application requires caution owing to the potential inaccuracy of their results.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".