Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37143631›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

Evaluating ChatGPT's Ability to Solve Higher-Order Questions on the Competency-Based Medical Education Curriculum in Medical Biochemistry.

Arindam Ghosh, Aritri Bir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

2 authors.

Arindam GhoshBiochemistry, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Dr. B.C. Roy Multi-Speciality Medical Research Centre, Kharagpur, IND.
Aritri BirBiochemistry, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Dr. B.C. Roy Multi-Speciality Medical Research Centre, Kharagpur, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Healthcare-related artificial intelligence (AI) is developing. The capacity of the system to carry out sophisticated cognitive processes, such as problem-solving, decision-making, reasoning, and perceiving, is referred to as higher cognitive thinking in AI. This kind of thinking requires more than just processing facts; it also entails comprehending and working with abstract ideas, evaluating and applying data relevant to the context, and producing new insights based on prior learning and experience. ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence-based conversational software that can engage with people to answer questions and uses natural language processing models. The platform has created a worldwide buzz and keeps setting an ongoing trend in solving many complex problems in various dimensions. Nevertheless, ChatGPT's capacity to correctly respond to queries requiring higher-level thinking in medical biochemistry has not yet been investigated. So, this research aimed to evaluate ChatGPT's aptitude for responding to higher-order questions on medical biochemistry. Objective In this study, our objective was to determine whether ChatGPT can address higher-order problems related to medical biochemistry.​​​​​​ Methods​​​ This cross-sectional study was done online by conversing with the current version of ChatGPT (14 March 2023, which is presently free for registered users). It was presented with 200 medical biochemistry reasoning questions that require higher-order thinking. These questions were randomly picked from the institution's question bank and classified according to the Competency-Based Medical Education (CBME) curriculum's competency modules. The responses were collected and archived for subsequent research. Two expert biochemistry academicians examined the replies on a zero to five scale. The score's accuracy was determined by a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test using hypothetical values. Result The AI software answered 200 questions requiring higher-order thinking with a median score of 4.0 (Q1=3.50, Q3=4.50). Using a single sample Wilcoxon signed rank test, the result was less than the hypothetical maximum of five (p=0.001) and comparable to four (p=0.16). There was no difference in the replies to questions from different CBME modules in medical biochemistry (Kruskal-Wallis p=0.39). The inter-rater reliability of the scores scored by two biochemistry faculty members was outstanding (ICC=0.926 (95% CI: 0.814-0.971); F=19; p=0.001)​​​​​​ Conclusion The results of this research indicate that ChatGPT has the potential to be a successful tool for answering questions requiring higher-order thinking in medical biochemistry, with a median score of four out of five. However, continuous training and development with data of recent advances are essential to improve performance and make it functional for the ever-growing field of academic medical usage.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebiochemistrychatgptcompetency-based medical educationhigher order cognitive skillslaboratory medicinemcqsmedical biochemistrymedical educationsolving multiple choice questions

Identifiers

PMID37143631
PMCPMC10152308

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.