ChatGPT-4 Knows Its A B C D E but Cannot Cite Its Source

Diane Ghanem; Alexander R Zhu; Whitney Kagabo; Greg Osgood; Babar Shafiq

doi:10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00099

ChatGPT-4 Knows Its A B C D E but Cannot Cite Its Source

JB JS Open Access. 2024 Sep 5;9(3):e24.00099. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00099. eCollection 2024 Jul-Sep.

Authors

Diane Ghanem¹, Alexander R Zhu², Whitney Kagabo¹, Greg Osgood¹, Babar Shafiq¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland.
² School of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

Abstract

Introduction: The artificial intelligence language model Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) has shown potential as a reliable and accessible educational resource in orthopaedic surgery. Yet, the accuracy of the references behind the provided information remains elusive, which poses a concern for maintaining the integrity of medical content. This study aims to examine the accuracy of the references provided by ChatGPT-4 concerning the Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, Exposure (ABCDE) approach in trauma surgery.

Methods: Two independent reviewers critically assessed 30 ChatGPT-4-generated references supporting the well-established ABCDE approach to trauma protocol, grading them as 0 (nonexistent), 1 (inaccurate), or 2 (accurate). All discrepancies between the ChatGPT-4 and PubMed references were carefully reviewed and bolded. Cohen's Kappa coefficient was used to examine the agreement of the accuracy scores of the ChatGPT-4-generated references between reviewers. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the mean reference accuracy scores. To compare the variance of the means across the 5 categories, one-way analysis of variance was used.

Results: ChatGPT-4 had an average reference accuracy score of 66.7%. Of the 30 references, only 43.3% were accurate and deemed "true" while 56.7% were categorized as "false" (43.3% inaccurate and 13.3% nonexistent). The accuracy was consistent across the 5 trauma protocol categories, with no significant statistical difference (p = 0.437).

Discussion: With 57% of references being inaccurate or nonexistent, ChatGPT-4 has fallen short in providing reliable and reproducible references-a concerning finding for the safety of using ChatGPT-4 for professional medical decision making without thorough verification. Only if used cautiously, with cross-referencing, can this language model act as an adjunct learning tool that can enhance comprehensiveness as well as knowledge rehearsal and manipulation.

Publication types

Review