An Assessment of the Performance of Different Chatbots on Shoulder and Elbow Questions

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> The utility of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical education has recently garnered significant interest, with several studies exploring its applications across various educational domains; however, its role in orthopedic education, particularly in shoulder and elbow surgery, remains scarcely studied. This study aims to evaluate the performance of multiple AI models in answering shoulder- and elbow-related questions from the AAOS ResStudy question bank. <b>Methods</b>: A total of 50 shoulder- and elbow-related questions from the AAOS ResStudy question bank were selected for the study. Questions were categorized according to anatomical location, topic, concept, and difficulty. Each question, along with the possible multiple-choice answers, was provided to each chatbot. The performance of each chatbot was recorded and analyzed to identify significant differences between the chatbots' performances across various categories. <b>Results</b>: The overall average performance of all chatbots was 60.4%. There were significant differences in the performances of different chatbots (<i>p</i> = 0.034): GPT-4o performed best, answering 74% of the questions correctly. AAOS members outperformed all chatbots, with an average accuracy of 79.4%. There were no significant differences in performance between shoulder and elbow questions (<i>p</i> = 0.931). Topic-wise, chatbots did worse on questions relating to "Adhesive Capsulitis" than those relating to "Instability" (<i>p</i> = 0.013), "Nerve Injuries" (<i>p</i> = 0.002), and "Arthroplasty" (<i>p</i> = 0.028). Concept-wise, the best performance was seen in "Diagnosis" (71.4%), but there were no significant differences in scores between different chatbots. Difficulty analysis revealed that chatbots performed significantly better on easy questions (68.5%) compared to moderate (45.4%; <i>p</i> = 0.04) and hard questions (40.0%; <i>p</i> = 0.012). <b>Conclusions</b>: AI chatbots show promise as supplementary tools in medical education and clinical decision-making, but their limitations necessitate cautious and complementary use alongside expert human judgment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2025-03-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14072289
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

An Assessment of the Performance of Different Chatbots on Shoulder and Elbow Questions

Adam Z. Khan, Brian W. Hill, Mohammad Daher, Mohamad Y. Fares et al.
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

An Assessment of the Performance of Different Chatbots on Shoulder and Elbow Questions

Adam Z. Khan, Brian W. Hill, Mohammad Daher, Mohamad Y. Fares, Peter Boufadel, Joseph Albert Abboud, John G. Horneff, Jonathan Berg, Austin Witt, T. L. Parmar
article en

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> The utility of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical education has recently garnered significant interest, with several studies exploring its applications across various educational domains; however, its role in orthopedic education, particularly in shoulder and elbow surgery, remains scarcely studied. This study aims to evaluate the performance of multiple AI models in answering shoulder- and elbow-related questions from the AAOS ResStudy question bank. <b>Methods</b>: A total of 50 shoulder- and elbow-related questions from the AAOS ResStudy question bank were selected for the study. Questions were categorized according to anatomical location, topic, concept, and difficulty. Each question, along with the possible multiple-choice answers, was provided to each chatbot. The performance of each chatbot was recorded and analyzed to identify significant differences between the chatbots' performances across various categories. <b>Results</b>: The overall average performance of all chatbots was 60.4%. There were significant differences in the performances of different chatbots (<i>p</i> = 0.034): GPT-4o performed best, answering 74% of the questions correctly. AAOS members outperformed all chatbots, with an average accuracy of 79.4%. There were no significant differences in performance between shoulder and elbow questions (<i>p</i> = 0.931). Topic-wise, chatbots did worse on questions relating to "Adhesive Capsulitis" than those relating to "Instability" (<i>p</i> = 0.013), "Nerve Injuries" (<i>p</i> = 0.002), and "Arthroplasty" (<i>p</i> = 0.028). Concept-wise, the best performance was seen in "Diagnosis" (71.4%), but there were no significant differences in scores between different chatbots. Difficulty analysis revealed that chatbots performed significantly better on easy questions (68.5%) compared to moderate (45.4%; <i>p</i> = 0.04) and hard questions (40.0%; <i>p</i> = 0.012). <b>Conclusions</b>: AI chatbots show promise as supplementary tools in medical education and clinical decision-making, but their limitations necessitate cautious and complementary use alongside expert human judgment.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 14(7)
Pennsylvania State University (US), Thomas Jefferson University (US), Brown University (US), Baylor University Medical Center (US), Rothman Orthopaedics (US), Colorado Permanente Medical Group (US), University of Pennsylvania (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 96%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.