Abstract
Background
This study aims to assess the accuracy, comprehensiveness, and validity of ChatGPT compared to evidence-based sources regarding the diagnosis and management of common surgical conditions by surveying the perceptions of U.S. board-certified practicing surgeons.
Methods
An anonymous cross-sectional survey was distributed to U.S. practicing surgeons from June 2023 to March 2024. The survey comprised 94 multiple-choice questions evaluating diagnostic and management information for five common surgical conditions from evidence-based sources or generated by ChatGPT. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and paired-sample t-tests.
Results
Participating surgeons were primarily aged 40-50 years (43%), male (86%), White (57%), and had 5-10 years or >15 years of experience (86%). The majority of surgeons had no prior experience with ChatGPT in surgical practice (86%). For material discussing both acute cholecystitis and upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage, evidence-based sources were rated as significantly more comprehensive (3.57 (±.535) vs 2.00 (±1.16), P = .025) (4.14 (±.69) vs 2.43 (±.98), P < .001) and valid (3.71 (±.488) vs 2.86 (±1.07), P = .045) (3.71 (±.76) vs 2.71 (±.95) P = .038) than ChatGPT. However, there was no significant difference in accuracy between the two sources (3.71 vs 3.29, P = .289) (3.57 vs 2.71, P = .111).
Conclusion
Surveyed U.S. board-certified practicing surgeons rated evidence-based sources as significantly more comprehensive and valid compared to ChatGPT across the majority of surveyed surgical conditions. However, there was no significant difference in accuracy between the sources across the majority of surveyed conditions. While ChatGPT may offer potential benefits in surgical practice, further refinement and validation are necessary to enhance its utility and acceptance among surgeons.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
