ArticleSAGE open medicine2024
ChatGPT-3.5 passes Poland's medical final examination-Is it possible for ChatGPT to become a doctor in Poland?
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Performance of large language models in medical licensing examinations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiology Examination: A Comparative Study of Physicians, ChatGPT-4, and ChatGPT-5.Cureus · 2026Article
- Meat allergy: Specific reactions to chicken, beef, pork, and alternative protein sources.Asia Pacific allergy · 2026Review
- Reporting guideline for the use of Generative Artificial intelligence tools in MEdical Research: the GAMER Statement.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Large Language Models in Critical Care Medicine: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Article
- A bi-linguistic comparative analysis of ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Claude performance on Polish medical-dental final examinations.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4 obstetric and gynecological knowledge.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Impact of cyclosporine A on the progression of ocular surface diseases: treatment efficacy and potential complications.Journal of medical microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: ChatGPT is an advanced chatbot based on Large Language Model that has the ability to answer questions. Undoubtedly, ChatGPT is capable of transforming communication, education, and customer support; however, can it play the role of a doctor? In Poland, prior to obtaining a medical diploma, candidates must successfully pass the Medical Final Examination. Methods: The purpose of this research was to determine how well ChatGPT performed on the Polish Medical Final Examination, which passing is required to become a doctor in Poland (an exam is considered passed if at least 56% of the tasks are answered correctly). A total of 2138 categorized Medical Final Examination questions (from 11 examination sessions held between 2013-2015 and 2021-2023) were presented to ChatGPT-3.5 from 19 to 26 May 2023. For further analysis, the questions were divided into quintiles based on difficulty and duration, as well as question types (simple A-type or complex K-type). The answers provided by ChatGPT were compared to the official answer key, reviewed for any changes resulting from the advancement of medical knowledge. Results: ChatGPT correctly answered 53.4%-64.9% of questions. In 8 out of 11 exam sessions, ChatGPT achieved the scores required to successfully pass the examination (60%). The correlation between the efficacy of artificial intelligence and the level of complexity, difficulty, and length of a question was found to be negative. AI outperformed humans in one category: psychiatry (77.18% vs. 70.25%, Conclusions: The performance of artificial intelligence is deemed satisfactory; however, it is observed to be markedly inferior to that of human graduates in the majority of instances. Despite its potential utility in many medical areas, ChatGPT is constrained by its inherent limitations that prevent it from entirely supplanting human expertise and knowledge.
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.