Assessing the Performance of Artificial Intelligence on Anesthesiology In-Training Examinations and Applicability in Medical Education
Ibrahim, A. F.; Zaki, J. F.
Show abstract
INTRODUCTION Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated substantial performance on medical licensing and board examinations, but their application to anesthesiology remains less well studied. Prior evaluations have not compared current-generation models from different developers or assessed performance on figure-dependent questions that earlier models lacked the capability to interpret. This study evaluates the performance of two current-generation LLMs on a comprehensive anesthesiology in-training examination (ITE) review question bank, including figure-dependent items. METHODS A total of 1,001 single-best-answer questions from an anesthesiology ITE review text, spanning 11 content chapters, were administered to Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.6. No questions were excluded. Each item was presented once in a fresh, stateless context with no tool access, retrieval, answer key, or explanation provided in the prompt. Performance was analyzed by question format, and all 27 figure-dependent items were administered with their published figures supplied. Accuracy between models was compared using McNemar's test. RESULTS Claude Opus 5 answered 947/1,001 items correctly (94.6%; 95% CI, 93.0-95.8), and GPT-5.6 answered 946/1,001 correctly (94.5%; 95% CI, 92.9-95.8); the difference was not significant (McNemar p=1.00). Accuracy was similar across most question formats. On standard questions, accuracy was 94.3% and 94.6% for Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.6, respectively; on the 18 figure-based questions with figures supplied, accuracy was 94.4% and 83.3%, respectively; and both models achieved 100% accuracy on image-option items. Withholding figures from the same 18 figure-based questions reduced pooled accuracy from 88.9% to 52.8% (exact McNemar p=0.03 and p=0.04 for Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.6, respectively). The models agreed on 957/1,001 items (95.6%). Of the 33 items both models answered incorrectly, they selected the same incorrect option on 32 (97%). DISCUSSION Current-generation LLMs achieved approximately 95% accuracy, substantially improving on our prior results with earlier-generation models and placing both models within the highest band of the ITE normative framework, corresponding approximately to the 99th percentile across training levels. By comparison, our prior work with previous models placed ChatGPT-3.5 at the 52nd, 3rd, and 1st percentiles and ChatGPT-4.0 at the 99th, 95th, and 84th percentiles across increasing levels of training. Multimodal capability now permits successful interpretation of many figure-dependent questions, although performance declines markedly when required visual information is unavailable, and highly concordant errors remain. These findings support an increasingly promising role for LLMs as accessible, on-demand educational adjuncts for anesthesiology trainees, provided complete source material is supplied and outputs are critically reviewed.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Prohibiting Babel - A call for professional remote interpreting services in pre-operation anaesthesia information 93%
- Evaluation of Large Language Models in Medical Examinations:A Scoping Review Protocol 93%
- Evaluating user experience with immersive technology in simulation-based education: a modified Delphi study with qualitative analysis 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Preoperative predictions of in-hospital mortality using electronic medical record data 92%
- Effect of Telemedicine Support for Intraoperative Anaesthesia Care on Postoperative Outcomes: The TECTONICS Randomised Clinical Trial 90%
- Effect of Machine Learning on Anaesthesiology Clinician Prediction of Postoperative Complications: The Perioperative ORACLE Randomised Clinical Trial 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Bridging the Literacy Gap for Surgical Consents: An AI-Human Expert Collaborative Approach 93%
- A typology of physician input approaches to using AI chatbots for clinical decision-making: a mixed methods study 92%
- Utilization of Generative AI-drafted Responses for Managing Patient-Provider Communication 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparative Analysis of Multimodal Large Language Models GPT-4o and o1 vs Clinicians in Clinical Case Challenge Questions 89%
- Risk Factor Stratification for Postoperative Delirium: A Retrospective Database Study 88%
- Open Science Practices Among Authors Published in Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Journals: An International, Cross-Sectional Survey 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance of o1 pro and GPT-4 in self-assessment questions for nephrology board renewal 92%
- Emerging Applications of NLP and Large Language Models in Gastroenterology and Hepatology: A Systematic Review 89%
- Disruption of Normal Saline Supply Chain due to Natural Disaster: an analysis of the impact of normal saline shortage on anesthesia practice in a large hospital system and models towards resiliency 88%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.