RESUMEN
Objectives: ChatGPT is an advanced chatbot based on Large Language Model that has the ability to answer questions. Undoubtedly, ChatGPT is capable of transforming communication, education, and customer support; however, can it play the role of a doctor? In Poland, prior to obtaining a medical diploma, candidates must successfully pass the Medical Final Examination. Methods: The purpose of this research was to determine how well ChatGPT performed on the Polish Medical Final Examination, which passing is required to become a doctor in Poland (an exam is considered passed if at least 56% of the tasks are answered correctly). A total of 2138 categorized Medical Final Examination questions (from 11 examination sessions held between 2013-2015 and 2021-2023) were presented to ChatGPT-3.5 from 19 to 26 May 2023. For further analysis, the questions were divided into quintiles based on difficulty and duration, as well as question types (simple A-type or complex K-type). The answers provided by ChatGPT were compared to the official answer key, reviewed for any changes resulting from the advancement of medical knowledge. Results: ChatGPT correctly answered 53.4%-64.9% of questions. In 8 out of 11 exam sessions, ChatGPT achieved the scores required to successfully pass the examination (60%). The correlation between the efficacy of artificial intelligence and the level of complexity, difficulty, and length of a question was found to be negative. AI outperformed humans in one category: psychiatry (77.18% vs. 70.25%, p = 0.081). Conclusions: The performance of artificial intelligence is deemed satisfactory; however, it is observed to be markedly inferior to that of human graduates in the majority of instances. Despite its potential utility in many medical areas, ChatGPT is constrained by its inherent limitations that prevent it from entirely supplanting human expertise and knowledge.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The introduction of modern sub-perception modalities has improved the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in refractory pain syndromes of the trunk and lower limbs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of low and high frequency SCS among patients with chronic pain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomised, semi-double-blind, placebo controlled, four period (4 × 2 weeks) crossover trial was conducted from August 2018 to January 2020. Eighteen patients with SCS due to failed back surgery syndrome and/or complex regional pain syndrome were randomised to four treatment arms without washout periods: (1) low frequency (40-60 Hz), (2) 1 kHz, (3) clustered tonic, and (4) sham SCS (i.e., placebo). The primary outcome was pain scores measured by visual analogue scale (VAS) preoperatively and during subsequent treatment arms. RESULTS: Pain scores (VAS) reported during the preoperative period was M (SD) = 8.13 (0.99). There was a 50% reduction in pain reported in the low frequency tonic treatment group (M (SD) = 4.18 (1.76)), a 37% reduction in the 1 kHz treatment group (M (SD) = 5.17 (1.4)), a 34% reduction in the clustered tonic settings group (M (SD) = 5.27 (1.33)), and a 34% reduction in the sham stimulation group (M (SD) = 5.42 (1.22)). The reduction in pain from the preoperative period to the treatment period was significant in each treatment group (p < 0.001). Overall, these reductions were of comparable magnitude between treatments. However, the modality most preferred by patients was low frequency (55% or 10 patients). CONCLUSIONS: The pain-relieving effects of SCS reached significance and were comparable across all modes of stimulation including sham. Sub-perception stimulation was not superior to supra-perception. SCS was characterised by a high degree of placebo effect. No evidence of carryover effect was observed between subsequent treatments. Contemporary neuromodulation procedures should be tailored to the individual preferences of patients.
