How Does ChatGPT Perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)? The Implications of Large Language Models for Medical Education and Knowledge Assessment.

Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is a 175-billion-parameter natural language processing model that can generate conversation-style responses to user input. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT on questions within the scope of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 exams, as well as to analyze responses for user interpretability. We used 2 sets of multiple-choice questions to evaluate ChatGPT's performance, each with questions pertaining to Step 1 and Step 2. The first set was derived from AMBOSS, a commonly used question bank for medical students, which also provides statistics on question difficulty and the performance on an exam relative to the user base. The second set was the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) free 120 questions. ChatGPT's performance was compared to 2 other large language models, GPT-3 and InstructGPT. The text output of each ChatGPT response was evaluated across 3 qualitative metrics: logical justification of the answer selected, presence of information internal to the question, and presence of information external to the question. Of the 4 data sets, AMBOSS-Step1, AMBOSS-Step2, NBME-Free-Step1, and NBME-Free-Step2, ChatGPT achieved accuracies of 44% (44/100), 42% (42/100), 64.4% (56/87), and 57.8% (59/102), respectively. ChatGPT outperformed InstructGPT by 8.15% on average across all data sets, and GPT-3 performed similarly to random chance. The model demonstrated a significant decrease in performance as question difficulty increased (P=.01) within the AMBOSS-Step1 data set. We found that logical justification for ChatGPT's answer selection was present in 100% of outputs of the NBME data sets. Internal information to the question was present in 96.8% (183/189) of all questions. The presence of information external to the question was 44.5% and 27% lower for incorrect answers relative to correct answers on the NBME-Free-Step1 (P<.001) and NBME-Free-Step2 (P=.001) data sets, respectively. ChatGPT marks a significant improvement in natural language processing models on the tasks of medical question answering. By performing at a greater than 60% threshold on the NBME-Free-Step-1 data set, we show that the model achieves the equivalent of a passing score for a third-year medical student. Additionally, we highlight ChatGPT's capacity to provide logic and informational context across the majority of answers. These facts taken together make a compelling case for the potential applications of ChatGPT as an interactive medical education tool to support learning.

Gilson A ，Safranek CW ，Huang T ，Socrates V ，Chi L ，Taylor RA ，Chartash D ... -  《-》

Performance of ChatGPT on the Peruvian National Licensing Medical Examination: Cross-Sectional Study.

ChatGPT has shown impressive performance in national medical licensing examinations, such as the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), even passing it with expert-level performance. However, there is a lack of research on its performance in low-income countries' national licensing medical examinations. In Peru, where almost one out of three examinees fails the national licensing medical examination, ChatGPT has the potential to enhance medical education. We aimed to assess the accuracy of ChatGPT using GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on the Peruvian National Licensing Medical Examination (Examen Nacional de Medicina [ENAM]). Additionally, we sought to identify factors associated with incorrect answers provided by ChatGPT. We used the ENAM 2022 data set, which consisted of 180 multiple-choice questions, to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT. Various prompts were used, and accuracy was evaluated. The performance of ChatGPT was compared to that of a sample of 1025 examinees. Factors such as question type, Peruvian-specific knowledge, discrimination, difficulty, quality of questions, and subject were analyzed to determine their influence on incorrect answers. Questions that received incorrect answers underwent a three-step process involving different prompts to explore the potential impact of adding roles and context on ChatGPT's accuracy. GPT-4 achieved an accuracy of 86% on the ENAM, followed by GPT-3.5 with 77%. The accuracy obtained by the 1025 examinees was 55%. There was a fair agreement (κ=0.38) between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. Moderate-to-high-difficulty questions were associated with incorrect answers in the crude and adjusted model for GPT-3.5 (odds ratio [OR] 6.6, 95% CI 2.73-15.95) and GPT-4 (OR 33.23, 95% CI 4.3-257.12). After reinputting questions that received incorrect answers, GPT-3.5 went from 41 (100%) to 12 (29%) incorrect answers, and GPT-4 from 25 (100%) to 4 (16%). Our study found that ChatGPT (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) can achieve expert-level performance on the ENAM, outperforming most of our examinees. We found fair agreement between both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. Incorrect answers were associated with the difficulty of questions, which may resemble human performance. Furthermore, by reinputting questions that initially received incorrect answers with different prompts containing additional roles and context, ChatGPT achieved improved accuracy.

Flores-Cohaila JA ，García-Vicente A ，Vizcarra-Jiménez SF ，De la Cruz-Galán JP ，Gutiérrez-Arratia JD ，Quiroga Torres BG ，Taype-Rondan A ... -  《-》

ChatGPT's performance in German OB/GYN exams - paving the way for AI-enhanced medical education and clinical practice.

Riedel M ，Kaefinger K ，Stuehrenberg A ，Ritter V ，Amann N ，Graf A ，Recker F ，Klein E ，Kiechle M ，Riedel F ，Meyer B ... -  《Frontiers in Medicine》

Pure Wisdom or Potemkin Villages? A Comparison of ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4 on USMLE Step 3 Style Questions: Quantitative Analysis.

Knoedler L ，Alfertshofer M ，Knoedler S ，Hoch CC ，Funk PF ，Cotofana S ，Maheta B ，Frank K ，Brébant V ，Prantl L ，Lamby P ... -  《-》

Performance of ChatGPT on Ophthalmology-Related Questions Across Various Examination Levels: Observational Study.

Haddad F ，Saade JS 《-》