Journals / Acta Medica Alanya / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

How Successful Is Artificial Intelligence in Hand Surgery Questions of the Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Board Exams?

Yapay Zekâ, Türk Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Yeterlik Sınavı El Cerrahisi Sorularında Ne Kadar Başarılıdır?

Ahmet Acar(Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, Ankara Etlik Şehir Hastanesi)0000-0001-8378-4346
Sema Cihan(Etlik City Hospital)0000-0002-1788-6130
Pages
143–148
Publication Date
2026-08-16
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

While these models cannot replace formal medical training or clinical judgment, they may serve as supportive tools in orthopedic education and exam preparation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Artificial intelligence (AI) applications are increasingly used in medical education and clinical research.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This evaluation was based on items derived from the Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Board Examination administered between 2010 and 2025.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:While these models cannot replace formal medical training or clinical judgment, they may serve as supportive tools in orthopedic education and exam preparation.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:yapay zekâ · yeterlik soruları · ChatGPT

Abstract

Aim: Artificial intelligence (AI) applications are increasingly used in medical education and clinical research. The purpose of this study was to examine the accuracy of various large language models (LLMs) in responding to questions related to hand surgery. This evaluation was based on items derived from the Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Board Examination administered between 2010 and 2025. Methods: A total of 220 hand surgery–related multiple-choice questions were extracted from national board examinations administered between 2010 and 2025. Questions were posed to three LLMs (ChatGPT-5.0, Gemini-Pro, and DeepSeek-V3) using both collective and individual questioning approaches across three separate sessions. Model responses were compared with the official correct answers, and success rates were calculated descriptively. Results: All three LLMs achieved satisfactory performance across all years, with success rates ranging from 73.6% to 90.9%. Individually asked questions yielded higher average scores compared with collectively asked questions. Year-by-year analysis demonstrated that all models met or exceeded the examination passing threshold throughout the 16-year period. Conclusion: Current LLMs demonstrate a high level of factual knowledge in hand surgery board examination questions. While these models cannot replace formal medical training or clinical judgment, they may serve as supportive tools in orthopedic education and exam preparation.

Özet

Amaç: Yapay zekâ (YZ) uygulamaları tıp eğitimi ve klinik araştırmalarda giderek daha yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, çeşitli büyük dil modellerinin (LLM) el cerrahisi ile ilgili sorulara verdikleri yanıtların doğruluğunu değerlendirmektir. Bu değerlendirme, 2010–2025 yılları arasında uygulanan Türk Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Yeterlik Sınavı’ndan elde edilen sorular temel alınarak yapılmıştır. Yöntemler: 2010–2025 yılları arasında gerçekleştirilen ulusal yeterlik sınavlarından toplam 220 adet el cerrahisi ile ilişkili çoktan seçmeli soru seçilmiştir. Sorular, üç büyük dil modeline (ChatGPT-5.0, Gemini-Pro ve DeepSeek-V3) hem toplu hem de tek tek soru yöneltme yaklaşımları kullanılarak üç ayrı oturumda sunulmuştur. Model yanıtları resmi doğru cevaplarla karşılaştırılmış ve başarı oranları tanımlayıcı istatistikler kullanılarak hesaplanmıştır. Bulgular: Her üç büyük dil modeli de tüm yıllarda tatmin edici performans göstermiş olup başarı oranları %73,6 ile %90,9 arasında değişmiştir. Soruların tek tek yöneltildiği durumda elde edilen ortalama başarı oranları, toplu olarak yöneltilen sorulara kıyasla daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Yıllara göre yapılan analizde, tüm modellerin 16 yıllık dönem boyunca sınav geçme barajını karşıladığı veya aştığı görülmüştür. Sonuç: Güncel büyük dil modelleri, el cerrahisi yeterlik sınavı sorularında yüksek düzeyde bilgi birikimi göstermektedir. Bu modeller formal tıp eğitiminin veya klinik karar verme sürecinin yerini alamaz; ancak ortopedi eğitiminde ve sınav hazırlık sürecinde destekleyici araçlar olarak kullanılabilirler.

🔖

Cite This Article

Acar, A., Girgin, A. B., Cihan, S. (2026). How Successful Is Artificial Intelligence in Hand Surgery Questions of the Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Board Exams?. Acta Medica Alanya, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 143–148. https://doi.org/10.30565/medalanya.1894609

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Kufel J, Bargieł-Łączek K, Kocot S, Koźlik M, Bartnikowska W, Janik M, et al. What is machine learning, artificial neural networks and deep learning?—Examples of practical applications in medicine. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13(15):2582. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13152582.
  2. Seth I, Marcaccini G, Lim K, Castrechini M, Cuomo R, Ng SK-H, et al. Management of Dupuytren’s Disease: A Multi-Centric Comparative Analysis Between Experienced Hand Surgeons Versus Artificial Intelligence. Diagnostics (Basel). 2025;15(5):587. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics15050587.
  3. Wong GC, Kane RL, Chu C-C, Lin C-H, Kuo C-F, Chung KC. Enhancing systematic review efficiency in hand surgery using artificial intelligence (natural language processing) for abstract screening. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2025;50(4):472-9. doi: 10.1177/17531934241295493.
  4. Shen Y, Heacock L, Elias J, Hentel KD, Reig B, Shih G, et al. ChatGPT and Other Large Language Models Are Double-edged Swords. Radiology. 2023;307(2):e230163. doi: 10.1148/radiol.230163.
  5. Gönen E, Berk H. Comparison of the Totek and Ebot (European Board of Orthopaedics and Traumatology Fellowship) qualification examinations. TOTBID Journal. 2014;13:488-99. doi: 10.14292/totbid.dergisi.2014.59. 6. Acar AB, Yanik E, Altin E, Kurtkaya Kocak O. Is artificial intelligence successful in the Turkish neurology board exam? Neurol Res. 2025;47(5):402-5. doi: 10.1080/01616412.2025.2481444. 7. Yigitbay A. Evaluation of ChatGPT’s performance in the Turkish board of orthopaedic surgery examination. Med Bull Haseki. 2024. doi: 10.4274/ haseki.galenos.2024.10038
  6. Yağar H, Gümüşoğlu E, Mert Asfuroğlu Z. Assessing the performance of ChatGPT-4o on the Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Board Examination. Jt Dis Relat Surg. 2025;36(2):304-10. doi: 10.52312/jdrs.2025.1958.
  7. Massey PA, Montgomery C, Zhang AS. Comparison of ChatGPT–3.5, ChatGPT-4, and orthopaedic resident performance on orthopaedic assessment examinations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2023;31(23):1173-9. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-00396.
  8. Kung JE, Marshall C, Gauthier C, Gonzalez TA, Jackson III JB. Evaluating ChatGPT performance on the orthopaedic in-training examination. JB JS Open Access. 2023;8(3):e23. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.23.00056.
  9. Isleem UN, Zaidat B, Ren R, Geng EA, Burapachaisri A, Tang JE, et al. Can generative artificial intelligence pass the orthopaedic board examination? J Orthop. 2024;53:27-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2023.10.026.
  10. Arango SD, Flynn JC, Zeitlin J, Lorenzana DJ, Miller AJ, Wilson MS, et al. The performance of ChatGPT on the American Society for Surgery of the Hand self-assessment examination. Cureus. 2024;16(4):e58950. doi: 10.7759/cureus.58950.
  11. Gilson A, Safranek CW, Huang T, Socrates V, Chi L, Taylor RA, et al. How does ChatGPT perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)? The implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment. JMIR Med Educ. 2023;9:e45312. doi: 10.2196/45312.
  12. Humar P, Asaad M, Bengur FB, Nguyen V. ChatGPT is equivalent to first-year plastic surgery residents: evaluation of ChatGPT on the plastic surgery in-service examination. Aesthet Surg J. 2023;43(12):NP1085-9. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjad130.
  13. Passby L, Jenko N, Wernham A. Performance of ChatGPT on Specialty Certificate Examination in Dermatology multiple-choice questions. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2024;49(7):722-7. doi: 10.1093/ced/llad197.
  14. Chen TC, Multala E, Kearns P, Delashaw J, Dumont A, Maraganore D, et al. Assessment of ChatGPT’s performance on neurology written board examination questions. BMJ Neurol Open. 2023;5(2):e000530. doi: 10.1136/bmjno-2023-000530.
  15. Kufel J, Paszkiewicz I, Bielówka M, Bartnikowska W, Janik M, Stencel M, et al. Will ChatGPT pass the Polish specialty exam in radiology and diagnostic imaging? Insights into strengths and limitations. Pol J Radiol. 2023;88:e430. doi: 10.5114/pjr.2023.131215.
  16. Kufel J, Bielówka M, Rojek M, Mitręga A, Czogalik Ł, Kaczyńska D, et al. Assessing ChatGPT's performance in national nuclear medicine specialty examination: An evaluative analysis. Iran J Nucl Med. 2024;32(1):60-5. doi: 10.22034/IRJNM.2023.129434.1580.
  17. Bielówka M, Kufel J, Rojek M, Mitręga A, Kaczyńska D, Czogalik Ł, et al. Evaluating ChatGPT-3.5 in allergology: performance in the Polish Specialist Examination. Alergologia Polska-Polish Journal of Allergology. 2024;11(1):42-7. doi: 10.5114/pja.2024.135380.