ArticleCureus2023
Analysing the Applicability of ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing to Generate Reasoning-Based Multiple-Choice Questions in Medical Physiology.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Large language models for generating medical examinations: systematic review.BMC medical education · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluating AI-generated examination papers in periodontology: a comparative study with human-designed counterparts.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Artificial intelligence in radiology examinations: a psychometric comparison of question generation methods.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2026Article
- Examining the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Assessment: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT and Educator-Generated Multiple-Choice Questions in a Dental Exam.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026Article
- ChatGPT as a tool for reviewing multiple-choice questions in the health sector.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: Transformative Potential, Current Applications, and Future Implications.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Performance of ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 2.0 Pro, and DeepSeek-V3 in Patient-Facing Information on Chest Wall Deformities: A Comparative Evaluation of Accuracy, RELIABILITY, and Reproducibility.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A scoping review of the use of generative artificial intelligence tools in health profession education.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- AI-Driven Objective Structured Clinical Examination Generation in Digital Health Education: Comparative Analysis of Three GPT-4o Configurations.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Applications, Challenges, and Prospects of Generative Artificial Intelligence Empowering Medical Education: Scoping Review.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Multiple-Choice Tests in Head and Neck Ultrasound Created by Physicians and Large Language Models.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Generative AI vs. human expertise: a comparative analysis of case-based rational pharmacotherapy question generation.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Article
- Chatbots' Role in Generating Single Best Answer Questions for Undergraduate Medical Student Assessment: Comparative Analysis.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- A Comparative Analysis of Self-Directed Learning and the Jigsaw Method in Medical Physiology Education.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- MCQG-SRefine: Multiple Choice Question Generation and Evaluation with Iterative Self-Critique, Correction, and Comparison Feedback.Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. North American Chapter. Meeting · 2025Article
- ChatGPT and Other Large Language Models in Medical Education - Scoping Literature Review.Medical science educator · 2025Review
- Evolution of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education From 2000 to 2024: Bibliometric Analysis.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Article
- The Generation and Use of Medical MCQs: A Narrative Review.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Artificial intelligence (AI) is evolving in the medical education system. ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Microsoft Bing are AI-based models that can solve problems in medical education. However, the applicability of AI to create reasoning-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs) in the field of medical physiology is yet to be explored. Objective We aimed to assess and compare the applicability of ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing in generating reasoning-based MCQs for MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery) undergraduate students on the subject of physiology. Methods The National Medical Commission of India has developed an 11-module physiology curriculum with various competencies. Two physiologists independently chose a competency from each module. The third physiologist prompted all three AIs to generate five MCQs for each chosen competency. The two physiologists who provided the competencies rated the MCQs generated by the AIs on a scale of 0-3 for validity, difficulty, and reasoning ability required to answer them. We analyzed the average of the two scores using the Kruskal-Wallis test to compare the distribution across the total and module-wise responses, followed by a post-hoc test for pairwise comparisons. We used Cohen's Kappa (Κ) to assess the agreement in scores between the two raters. We expressed the data as a median with an interquartile range. We determined their statistical significance by a p-value <0.05. Results ChatGPT and Bard generated 110 MCQs for the chosen competencies. However, Bing provided only 100 MCQs as it failed to generate them for two competencies. The validity of the MCQs was rated as 3 (3-3) for ChatGPT, 3 (1.5-3) for Bard, and 3 (1.5-3) for Bing, showing a significant difference (p<0.001) among the models. The difficulty of the MCQs was rated as 1 (0-1) for ChatGPT, 1 (1-2) for Bard, and 1 (1-2) for Bing, with a significant difference (p=0.006). The required reasoning ability to answer the MCQs was rated as 1 (1-2) for ChatGPT, 1 (1-2) for Bard, and 1 (1-2) for Bing, with no significant difference (p=0.235). K was ≥ 0.8 for all three parameters across all three AI models. Conclusion AI still needs to evolve to generate reasoning-based MCQs in medical physiology. ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing showed certain limitations. Bing generated significantly least valid MCQs, while ChatGPT generated significantly least difficult MCQs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.