Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36812645›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2023

Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models.

Tiffany H Kung, Morgan Cheatham, Arielle Medenilla, Czarina Sillos, Lorie De Leon, Camille Elepaño, Maria Madriaga, Rimel Aggabao, Giezel Diaz-Candido, James Maningo and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1,600 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1,600citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1,600 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1,540 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Tiffany H KungAnsibleHealth, Inc Mountain View, California, United States of America.
Morgan CheathamWarren Alpert Medical School; Brown University Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America.
Arielle MedenillaAnsibleHealth, Inc Mountain View, California, United States of America.
Czarina SillosAnsibleHealth, Inc Mountain View, California, United States of America.
Lorie De LeonAnsibleHealth, Inc Mountain View, California, United States of America.
Camille ElepañoAnsibleHealth, Inc Mountain View, California, United States of America.
Maria MadriagaAnsibleHealth, Inc Mountain View, California, United States of America.
Rimel AggabaoAnsibleHealth, Inc Mountain View, California, United States of America.
Giezel Diaz-CandidoAnsibleHealth, Inc Mountain View, California, United States of America.
James ManingoAnsibleHealth, Inc Mountain View, California, United States of America.
Victor TsengAnsibleHealth, Inc Mountain View, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0211-512X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We evaluated the performance of a large language model called ChatGPT on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE), which consists of three exams: Step 1, Step 2CK, and Step 3. ChatGPT performed at or near the passing threshold for all three exams without any specialized training or reinforcement. Additionally, ChatGPT demonstrated a high level of concordance and insight in its explanations. These results suggest that large language models may have the potential to assist with medical education, and potentially, clinical decision-making.

Identifiers

PMID36812645
PMCPMC9931230

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.