Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.

Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.

Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.

Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.

Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.

Objective: The performance of large language models (LLMs) and their potential utility in obstetric and gynecological education are topics of ongoing debate. This study aimed to contribute to this discussion by examining the recent advancements in LLM technology and their transformative potential in artificial intelligence. Methods: This study assessed the performance of generative pre-trained transformer (GPT)-3.5 and -4 in understanding clinical information, as well as its potential implications for obstetric and gynecological education. Obstetrics and gynecology residents at three hospitals underwent an annual promotional examination, from which 116 of the 170 questions over 4 years (2020-2023) were analyzed, excluding 54 questions with images. The scores achieved by GPT-3.5, -4, and the 100 residents were compared. Results: The average scores across all 4 years for GPT-3.5 and -4 were 38.79 (standard deviation [SD], 5.65) and 79.31 (SD, 3.67), respectively. For groups first-year resident, second-year resident, and third-year resident, the cumulative annual average scores were 79.12 (SD, 9.00), 80.95 (SD, 5.86), and 83.60 (SD, 6.82), respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed between the scores of GPT-4.0 and those of the residents. When analyzing questions specific to obstetrics, the average scores for GPT-3.5 and -4.0 were 33.44 (SD, 10.18) and 90.22 (SD, 7.68), respectively. Conclusion GPT-4 demonstrated exceptional performance in obstetrics, different types of data interpretation, and problem solving, showcasing the potential utility of LLMs in these areas. However, acknowledging the constraints of LLMs is crucial and their utilization should augment human expertise and discernment.

Objective: The performance of large language models (LLMs) and their potential utility in obstetric and gynecological education are topics of ongoing debate. This study aimed to contribute to this discussion by examining the recent advancements in LLM technology and their transformative potential in artificial intelligence. Methods: This study assessed the performance of generative pre-trained transformer (GPT)-3.5 and -4 in understanding clinical information, as well as its potential implications for obstetric and gynecological education. Obstetrics and gynecology residents at three hospitals underwent an annual promotional examination, from which 116 of the 170 questions over 4 years (2020-2023) were analyzed, excluding 54 questions with images. The scores achieved by GPT-3.5, -4, and the 100 residents were compared. Results: The average scores across all 4 years for GPT-3.5 and -4 were 38.79 (standard deviation [SD], 5.65) and 79.31 (SD, 3.67), respectively. For groups first-year resident, second-year resident, and third-year resident, the cumulative annual average scores were 79.12 (SD, 9.00), 80.95 (SD, 5.86), and 83.60 (SD, 6.82), respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed between the scores of GPT-4.0 and those of the residents. When analyzing questions specific to obstetrics, the average scores for GPT-3.5 and -4.0 were 33.44 (SD, 10.18) and 90.22 (SD, 7.68), respectively. Conclusion GPT-4 demonstrated exceptional performance in obstetrics, different types of data interpretation, and problem solving, showcasing the potential utility of LLMs in these areas. However, acknowledging the constraints of LLMs is crucial and their utilization should augment human expertise and discernment.

Objective: The performance of large language models (LLMs) and their potential utility in obstetric and gynecological education are topics of ongoing debate. This study aimed to contribute to this discussion by examining the recent advancements in LLM technology and their transformative potential in artificial intelligence. Methods: This study assessed the performance of generative pre-trained transformer (GPT)-3.5 and -4 in understanding clinical information, as well as its potential implications for obstetric and gynecological education. Obstetrics and gynecology residents at three hospitals underwent an annual promotional examination, from which 116 of the 170 questions over 4 years (2020-2023) were analyzed, excluding 54 questions with images. The scores achieved by GPT-3.5, -4, and the 100 residents were compared. Results: The average scores across all 4 years for GPT-3.5 and -4 were 38.79 (standard deviation [SD], 5.65) and 79.31 (SD, 3.67), respectively. For groups first-year resident, second-year resident, and third-year resident, the cumulative annual average scores were 79.12 (SD, 9.00), 80.95 (SD, 5.86), and 83.60 (SD, 6.82), respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed between the scores of GPT-4.0 and those of the residents. When analyzing questions specific to obstetrics, the average scores for GPT-3.5 and -4.0 were 33.44 (SD, 10.18) and 90.22 (SD, 7.68), respectively. Conclusion GPT-4 demonstrated exceptional performance in obstetrics, different types of data interpretation, and problem solving, showcasing the potential utility of LLMs in these areas. However, acknowledging the constraints of LLMs is crucial and their utilization should augment human expertise and discernment.

Objective: The performance of large language models (LLMs) and their potential utility in obstetric and gynecological education are topics of ongoing debate. This study aimed to contribute to this discussion by examining the recent advancements in LLM technology and their transformative potential in artificial intelligence. Methods: This study assessed the performance of generative pre-trained transformer (GPT)-3.5 and -4 in understanding clinical information, as well as its potential implications for obstetric and gynecological education. Obstetrics and gynecology residents at three hospitals underwent an annual promotional examination, from which 116 of the 170 questions over 4 years (2020-2023) were analyzed, excluding 54 questions with images. The scores achieved by GPT-3.5, -4, and the 100 residents were compared. Results: The average scores across all 4 years for GPT-3.5 and -4 were 38.79 (standard deviation [SD], 5.65) and 79.31 (SD, 3.67), respectively. For groups first-year resident, second-year resident, and third-year resident, the cumulative annual average scores were 79.12 (SD, 9.00), 80.95 (SD, 5.86), and 83.60 (SD, 6.82), respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed between the scores of GPT-4.0 and those of the residents. When analyzing questions specific to obstetrics, the average scores for GPT-3.5 and -4.0 were 33.44 (SD, 10.18) and 90.22 (SD, 7.68), respectively. Conclusion GPT-4 demonstrated exceptional performance in obstetrics, different types of data interpretation, and problem solving, showcasing the potential utility of LLMs in these areas. However, acknowledging the constraints of LLMs is crucial and their utilization should augment human expertise and discernment.

Objective: The performance of large language models (LLMs) and their potential utility in obstetric and gynecological education are topics of ongoing debate. This study aimed to contribute to this discussion by examining the recent advancements in LLM technology and their transformative potential in artificial intelligence. Methods: This study assessed the performance of generative pre-trained transformer (GPT)-3.5 and -4 in understanding clinical information, as well as its potential implications for obstetric and gynecological education. Obstetrics and gynecology residents at three hospitals underwent an annual promotional examination, from which 116 of the 170 questions over 4 years (2020-2023) were analyzed, excluding 54 questions with images. The scores achieved by GPT-3.5, -4, and the 100 residents were compared. Results: The average scores across all 4 years for GPT-3.5 and -4 were 38.79 (standard deviation [SD], 5.65) and 79.31 (SD, 3.67), respectively. For groups first-year resident, second-year resident, and third-year resident, the cumulative annual average scores were 79.12 (SD, 9.00), 80.95 (SD, 5.86), and 83.60 (SD, 6.82), respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed between the scores of GPT-4.0 and those of the residents. When analyzing questions specific to obstetrics, the average scores for GPT-3.5 and -4.0 were 33.44 (SD, 10.18) and 90.22 (SD, 7.68), respectively. Conclusion GPT-4 demonstrated exceptional performance in obstetrics, different types of data interpretation, and problem solving, showcasing the potential utility of LLMs in these areas. However, acknowledging the constraints of LLMs is crucial and their utilization should augment human expertise and discernment.