Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Anatolian journal of emergency medicine, cilt.9, sa.1, ss.39-43, 2026 (Scopus, TRDizin)
Aim: To assess the accuracy and decision-support potential of ChatGPT in pediatric emergency practice by comparing its performance with human responses to structured multiple-choice questions. Material and Methods: This cross-sectional study used 100 randomly selected questions from Pediatric Emergency Medicine: Just the Facts, Second Edition. The GPT-4o model was tested without prior prompts, and its answers were compared with the reference solutions and human accuracy rates reported in the source. Accuracy rates were calculated and compared using z-tests. Correlation between ChatGPT and human performance was analyzed with Spearman’s test. Results: ChatGPT answered 85 of 100 questions correctly, achieving an accuracy of 85% (95% CI: 78.0–92.0), which was significantly higher than the mean human accuracy of 54% (95% CI: 50.8–57.4) (p < 0.001). Topic-based analysis showed that ChatGPT’s accuracy ranged from 75% to 100%, while human accuracy ranged from 30% to 65%, with higher variance. Among the 15 questions answered incorrectly by ChatGPT, 60% were case-based; the average correct human response rate for these was 35 ± 17%. A moderate positive correlation was observed between human and ChatGPT performance (ρ = 0.40, p < 0.001). Conclusion: ChatGPT demonstrated high accuracy on structured pediatric emergency questions, suggesting potential as a supportive tool in decision-making and education. While its strengths lie in knowledge-based tasks, limitations remain in complex case-based reasoning. These findings indicate that LLMs could complement, but not replace, human expertise. Prospective studies are warranted to evaluate real-world integration in pediatric emergency care.