Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37795422›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023

Evaluating the performance of ChatGPT-4 on the United Kingdom Medical Licensing Assessment.

U Hin Lai, Keng Sam Wu, Ting-Yu Hsu, Jessie Kai Ching Kan

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

4 authors.

U Hin LaiSandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust, West Bromwich, United Kingdom.
Keng Sam WuSandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust, West Bromwich, United Kingdom.
Ting-Yu HsuAston Medical School, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Jessie Kai Ching KanAston Medical School, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Recent developments in artificial intelligence large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, have allowed for the understanding and generation of human-like text. Studies have found LLMs abilities to perform well in various examinations including law, business and medicine. This study aims to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT in the United Kingdom Medical Licensing Assessment (UKMLA). Methods: Two publicly available UKMLA papers consisting of 200 single-best-answer (SBA) questions were screened. Nine SBAs were omitted as they contained images that were not suitable for input. Each question was assigned a specialty based on the UKMLA content map published by the General Medical Council. A total of 191 SBAs were inputted in ChatGPT-4 through three attempts over the course of 3 weeks (once per week). Results: ChatGPT scored 74.9% (143/191), 78.0% (149/191) and 75.6% (145/191) on three attempts, respectively. The average of all three attempts was 76.3% (437/573) with a 95% confidence interval of (74.46% and 78.08%). ChatGPT answered 129 SBAs correctly and 32 SBAs incorrectly on all three attempts. On three attempts, ChatGPT performed well in mental health (8/9 SBAs), cancer (11/14 SBAs) and cardiovascular (10/13 SBAs). On three attempts, ChatGPT did not perform well in clinical haematology (3/7 SBAs), endocrine and metabolic (2/5 SBAs) and gastrointestinal including liver (3/10 SBAs). Regarding to response consistency, ChatGPT provided correct answers consistently in 67.5% (129/191) of SBAs but provided incorrect answers consistently in 12.6% (24/191) and inconsistent response in 19.9% (38/191) of SBAs, respectively. Discussion and conclusion: This study suggests ChatGPT performs well in the UKMLA. There may be a potential correlation between specialty performance. LLMs ability to correctly answer SBAs suggests that it could be utilised as a supplementary learning tool in medical education with appropriate medical educator supervision.

Indexed as

assessmentChatGPTexaminationmedical educationMedical Licensing ExaminationmedicineUnited Kingdom Medical Licensing Assessment

Identifiers

PMID37795422
PMCPMC10547055

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.