Performance of ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in national licensing examinations for medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, and nursing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jin HK ，Lee HE ，Kim E 《BMC Medical Education》

Performance of ChatGPT Across Different Versions in Medical Licensing Examinations Worldwide: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Over the past 2 years, researchers have used various medical licensing examinations to test whether ChatGPT (OpenAI) possesses accurate medical knowledge. The performance of each version of ChatGPT on the medical licensing examination in multiple environments showed remarkable differences. At this stage, there is still a lack of a comprehensive understanding of the variability in ChatGPT's performance on different medical licensing examinations. In this study, we reviewed all studies on ChatGPT performance in medical licensing examinations up to March 2024. This review aims to contribute to the evolving discourse on artificial intelligence (AI) in medical education by providing a comprehensive analysis of the performance of ChatGPT in various environments. The insights gained from this systematic review will guide educators, policymakers, and technical experts to effectively and judiciously use AI in medical education. We searched the literature published between January 1, 2022, and March 29, 2024, by searching query strings in Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus. Two authors screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and independently assessed the quality of the literature concerning Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. We conducted both qualitative and quantitative analyses. A total of 45 studies on the performance of different versions of ChatGPT in medical licensing examinations were included in this study. GPT-4 achieved an overall accuracy rate of 81% (95% CI 78-84; P<.01), significantly surpassing the 58% (95% CI 53-63; P<.01) accuracy rate of GPT-3.5. GPT-4 passed the medical examinations in 26 of 29 cases, outperforming the average scores of medical students in 13 of 17 cases. Translating the examination questions into English improved GPT-3.5's performance but did not affect GPT-4. GPT-3.5 showed no difference in performance between examinations from English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries (P=.72), but GPT-4 performed better on examinations from English-speaking countries significantly (P=.02). Any type of prompt could significantly improve GPT-3.5's (P=.03) and GPT-4's (P<.01) performance. GPT-3.5 performed better on short-text questions than on long-text questions. The difficulty of the questions affected the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. In image-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs), ChatGPT's accuracy rate ranges from 13.1% to 100%. ChatGPT performed significantly worse on open-ended questions than on MCQs. GPT-4 demonstrates considerable potential for future use in medical education. However, due to its insufficient accuracy, inconsistent performance, and the challenges posed by differing medical policies and knowledge across countries, GPT-4 is not yet suitable for use in medical education. PROSPERO CRD42024506687; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=506687.

Liu M ，Okuhara T ，Chang X ，Shirabe R ，Nishiie Y ，Okada H ，Kiuchi T ... -  《JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH》

Exploring the Performance of ChatGPT Versions 3.5, 4, and 4 With Vision in the Chilean Medical Licensing Examination: Observational Study.

The deployment of OpenAI's ChatGPT-3.5 and its subsequent versions, ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-4 With Vision (4V; also known as "GPT-4 Turbo With Vision"), has notably influenced the medical field. Having demonstrated remarkable performance in medical examinations globally, these models show potential for educational applications. However, their effectiveness in non-English contexts, particularly in Chile's medical licensing examinations-a critical step for medical practitioners in Chile-is less explored. This gap highlights the need to evaluate ChatGPT's adaptability to diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. This study aims to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT versions 3.5, 4, and 4V in the EUNACOM (Examen Único Nacional de Conocimientos de Medicina), a major medical examination in Chile. Three official practice drills (540 questions) from the University of Chile, mirroring the EUNACOM's structure and difficulty, were used to test ChatGPT versions 3.5, 4, and 4V. The 3 ChatGPT versions were provided 3 attempts for each drill. Responses to questions during each attempt were systematically categorized and analyzed to assess their accuracy rate. All versions of ChatGPT passed the EUNACOM drills. Specifically, versions 4 and 4V outperformed version 3.5, achieving average accuracy rates of 79.32% and 78.83%, respectively, compared to 57.53% for version 3.5 (P<.001). Version 4V, however, did not outperform version 4 (P=.73), despite the additional visual capabilities. We also evaluated ChatGPT's performance in different medical areas of the EUNACOM and found that versions 4 and 4V consistently outperformed version 3.5. Across the different medical areas, version 3.5 displayed the highest accuracy in psychiatry (69.84%), while versions 4 and 4V achieved the highest accuracy in surgery (90.00% and 86.11%, respectively). Versions 3.5 and 4 had the lowest performance in internal medicine (52.74% and 75.62%, respectively), while version 4V had the lowest performance in public health (74.07%). This study reveals ChatGPT's ability to pass the EUNACOM, with distinct proficiencies across versions 3.5, 4, and 4V. Notably, advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have not significantly led to enhancements in performance on image-based questions. The variations in proficiency across medical fields suggest the need for more nuanced AI training. Additionally, the study underscores the importance of exploring innovative approaches to using AI to augment human cognition and enhance the learning process. Such advancements have the potential to significantly influence medical education, fostering not only knowledge acquisition but also the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills among health care professionals.

Rojas M ，Rojas M ，Burgess V ，Toro-Pérez J ，Salehi S ... -  《-》

Comparison of the Performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 With That of Medical Students on the Written German Medical Licensing Examination: Observational Study.

The potential of artificial intelligence (AI)-based large language models, such as ChatGPT, has gained significant attention in the medical field. This enthusiasm is driven not only by recent breakthroughs and improved accessibility, but also by the prospect of democratizing medical knowledge and promoting equitable health care. However, the performance of ChatGPT is substantially influenced by the input language, and given the growing public trust in this AI tool compared to that in traditional sources of information, investigating its medical accuracy across different languages is of particular importance. This study aimed to compare the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 with that of medical students on the written German medical licensing examination. To assess GPT-3.5's and GPT-4's medical proficiency, we used 937 original multiple-choice questions from 3 written German medical licensing examinations in October 2021, April 2022, and October 2022. GPT-4 achieved an average score of 85% and ranked in the 92.8th, 99.5th, and 92.6th percentiles among medical students who took the same examinations in October 2021, April 2022, and October 2022, respectively. This represents a substantial improvement of 27% compared to GPT-3.5, which only passed 1 out of the 3 examinations. While GPT-3.5 performed well in psychiatry questions, GPT-4 exhibited strengths in internal medicine and surgery but showed weakness in academic research. The study results highlight ChatGPT's remarkable improvement from moderate (GPT-3.5) to high competency (GPT-4) in answering medical licensing examination questions in German. While GPT-4's predecessor (GPT-3.5) was imprecise and inconsistent, it demonstrates considerable potential to improve medical education and patient care, provided that medically trained users critically evaluate its results. As the replacement of search engines by AI tools seems possible in the future, further studies with nonprofessional questions are needed to assess the safety and accuracy of ChatGPT for the general population.

Meyer A ，Riese J ，Streichert T 《-》

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 ... -  《-》