ArticleGlobal pediatric health2024
ChatGPT Yields a Passing Score on a Pediatric Board Preparatory Exam but Raises Red Flags.
Article in Global pediatric health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of Large Language Models When Answering Clinical Research Questions: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative performance of recent and prior large language models and pediatric residents on pediatric in-training examination questions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Can artificial intelligence pass the test? Evaluating chatbot scores on pediatric gastroenterology board-style questions.JPGN reports · 2026Article
- Performance of DeepSeek and GPT Models on Pediatric Board Preparation Questions: Comparative Evaluation.JMIR AI · 2025Article
- Performance of 5 Prominent Large Language Models in Surgical Knowledge Evaluation: A Comparative Analysis.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2024Article
- Performance of ChatGPT-4 on the Nepalese Undergraduate Medical Licensing Examination: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the performance of a publicly-available online artificial intelligence program (OpenAI's ChatGPT-3.5 and -4.0, August 3 versions) on a pediatric board preparatory examination, 2021 and 2022 PREP Methods: We entered 245 questions and answer choices from the Pediatrics 2021 PREP Results: For the AAP 2021 and 2022 PREP Conclusion: Using a publicly-available online chatbot to answer pediatric board preparatory examination questions yielded a passing score but demonstrated significant limitations in the chatbot's ability to assess some complex medical situations in children, posing a potential risk to this vulnerable population.
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.