These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Appraisal of ChatGPT's Aptitude for Medical Education: Comparative Analysis With Third-Year Medical Students in a Pulmonology Examination.
    Author: Cherif H, Moussa C, Missaoui AM, Salouage I, Mokaddem S, Dhahri B.
    Journal: JMIR Med Educ; 2024 Jul 23; 10():e52818. PubMed ID: 39042876.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The rapid evolution of ChatGPT has generated substantial interest and led to extensive discussions in both public and academic domains, particularly in the context of medical education. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate ChatGPT's performance in a pulmonology examination through a comparative analysis with that of third-year medical students. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we conducted a comparative analysis with 2 distinct groups. The first group comprised 244 third-year medical students who had previously taken our institution's 2020 pulmonology examination, which was conducted in French. The second group involved ChatGPT-3.5 in 2 separate sets of conversations: without contextualization (V1) and with contextualization (V2). In both V1 and V2, ChatGPT received the same set of questions administered to the students. RESULTS: V1 demonstrated exceptional proficiency in radiology, microbiology, and thoracic surgery, surpassing the majority of medical students in these domains. However, it faced challenges in pathology, pharmacology, and clinical pneumology. In contrast, V2 consistently delivered more accurate responses across various question categories, regardless of the specialization. ChatGPT exhibited suboptimal performance in multiple choice questions compared to medical students. V2 excelled in responding to structured open-ended questions. Both ChatGPT conversations, particularly V2, outperformed students in addressing questions of low and intermediate difficulty. Interestingly, students showcased enhanced proficiency when confronted with highly challenging questions. V1 fell short of passing the examination. Conversely, V2 successfully achieved examination success, outperforming 139 (62.1%) medical students. CONCLUSIONS: While ChatGPT has access to a comprehensive web-based data set, its performance closely mirrors that of an average medical student. Outcomes are influenced by question format, item complexity, and contextual nuances. The model faces challenges in medical contexts requiring information synthesis, advanced analytical aptitude, and clinical judgment, as well as in non-English language assessments and when confronted with data outside mainstream internet sources.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]