-
Performance of ChatGPT, Bard, Claude, and Bing on the Peruvian National Licensing Medical Examination: a cross-sectional study
-
Betzy Clariza Torres-Zegarra
 , Wagner Rios-Garcia, Alvaro Micael Ñaña-Cordova, Karen Fatima Arteaga-Cisneros, Xiomara Cristina Benavente Chalco, Marina Atena Bustamante Ordoñez, Carlos Jesus Gutierrez Rios, Carlos Alberto Ramos Godoy, Kristell Luisa Teresa Panta Quezada, Jesus Daniel Gutierrez-Arratia, Javier Alejandro Flores-Cohaila
-
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2023;20:30. Published online November 20, 2023
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.30
-
-
1,233
View
-
159
Download
-
4
Web of Science
-
4
Crossref
-
 Abstract
 PDF Supplementary Material
- Purpose
We aimed to describe the performance and evaluate the educational value of justifications provided by artificial intelligence chatbots, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Bard, Claude, and Bing, on the Peruvian National Medical Licensing Examination (P-NLME).
Methods
This was a cross-sectional analytical study. On July 25, 2023, each multiple-choice question (MCQ) from the P-NLME was entered into each chatbot (GPT-3, GPT-4, Bing, Bard, and Claude) 3 times. Then, 4 medical educators categorized the MCQs in terms of medical area, item type, and whether the MCQ required Peru-specific knowledge. They assessed the educational value of the justifications from the 2 top performers (GPT-4 and Bing).
Results
GPT-4 scored 86.7% and Bing scored 82.2%, followed by Bard and Claude, and the historical performance of Peruvian examinees was 55%. Among the factors associated with correct answers, only MCQs that required Peru-specific knowledge had lower odds (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.09–0.61), whereas the remaining factors showed no associations. In assessing the educational value of justifications provided by GPT-4 and Bing, neither showed any significant differences in certainty, usefulness, or potential use in the classroom.
Conclusion
Among chatbots, GPT-4 and Bing were the top performers, with Bing performing better at Peru-specific MCQs. Moreover, the educational value of justifications provided by the GPT-4 and Bing could be deemed appropriate. However, it is essential to start addressing the educational value of these chatbots, rather than merely their performance on examinations.
-
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by  - Performance of GPT-4V in Answering the Japanese Otolaryngology Board Certification Examination Questions: Evaluation Study
Masao Noda, Takayoshi Ueno, Ryota Koshu, Yuji Takaso, Mari Dias Shimada, Chizu Saito, Hisashi Sugimoto, Hiroaki Fushiki, Makoto Ito, Akihiro Nomura, Tomokazu Yoshizaki
JMIR Medical Education.2024; 10: e57054. CrossRef - Response to Letter to the Editor re: “Artificial Intelligence Versus Expert Plastic Surgeon: Comparative Study Shows ChatGPT ‘Wins' Rhinoplasty Consultations: Should We Be Worried? [1]” by Durairaj et al.
Kay Durairaj, Omer Baker
Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine.2024;[Epub] CrossRef - Opportunities, challenges, and future directions of large language models, including ChatGPT in medical education: a systematic scoping review
Xiaojun Xu, Yixiao Chen, Jing Miao
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2024; 21: 6. CrossRef - Information amount, accuracy, and relevance of generative artificial intelligence platforms’ answers regarding learning objectives of medical arthropodology evaluated in English and Korean queries in December 2023: a descriptive study
Hyunju Lee, Soobin Park
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2023; 20: 39. CrossRef
|
KHPLEI
