SynthesisPloS one2024
Evaluating the competency of ChatGPT in MRCP Part 1 and a systematic literature review of its capabilities in postgraduate medical assessments.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
- Article
- Comparison of Large Language Model Performance on the United Kingdom Neurology Specialty Certificate Examination.Cureus · 2026Article
- Education Research: Can Large Language Models Match MS Specialist Training?: A Comparative Study of AI and Student Responses to Support Neurology Education.Neurology. Education · 2025Article
- Use and Evaluation of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Medical Students in Japan.JMA journal · 2025Article
- Bridging Gaps in Cancer Care: Utilizing Large Language Models for Accessible Dietary Recommendations.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Higher education students' perceptions of ChatGPT: A global study of early reactions.PloS one · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAs a large language model (LLM) trained on a large data set, ChatGPT can perform a wide array of tasks without additional training. We evaluated the performance of ChatGPT on postgraduate UK medical examinations through a systematic literature review of ChatGPT's performance in UK postgraduate medical assessments and its performance on Member of Royal College of Physicians (MRCP) Part 1 examination.
methodsMedline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched. Articles discussing the performance of ChatGPT in UK postgraduate medical examinations were included in the systematic review. Information was extracted on exam performance including percentage scores and pass/fail rates. MRCP UK Part 1 sample paper questions were inserted into ChatGPT-3.5 and -4 four times each and the scores marked against the correct answers provided.
results12 studies were ultimately included in the systematic literature review. ChatGPT-3.5 scored 66.4% and ChatGPT-4 scored 84.8% on MRCP Part 1 sample paper, which is 4.4% and 22.8% above the historical pass mark respectively. Both ChatGPT-3.5 and -4 performance was significantly above the historical pass mark for MRCP Part 1, indicating they would likely pass this examination. ChatGPT-3.5 failed eight out of nine postgraduate exams it performed with an average percentage of 5.0% below the pass mark. ChatGPT-4 passed nine out of eleven postgraduate exams it performed with an average percentage of 13.56% above the pass mark. ChatGPT-4 performance was significantly better than ChatGPT-3.5 in all examinations that both models were tested on.
conclusionChatGPT-4 performed at above passing level for the majority of UK postgraduate medical examinations it was tested on. ChatGPT is prone to hallucinations, fabrications and reduced explanation accuracy which could limit its potential as a learning tool. The potential for these errors is an inherent part of LLMs and may always be a limitation for medical applications of ChatGPT.
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.