ArticleCureus2024
Performance of ChatGPT in Solving Questions From the Progress Test (Brazilian National Medical Exam): A Potential Artificial Intelligence Tool in Medical Practice.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 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
- Accuracy of ChatGPT-4o in Identifying Anatomical Structures on Cadaveric Images: A Practical Anatomy Examination Study.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Evaluating and leveraging large language models in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics assessment: From exam takers to exam shapers.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Clinical Implications of ChatGPT-assisted Multimodal Pre-operative Assessment in Elderly Pertrochanteric Fracture Patients: An Exploratory Study.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Performance of DeepSeek-R1, ChatGPT (GPT-o3-mini), and Gemini 2.0 Flash on German Medical Multiple-Choice Questions: Comparative Evaluation.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Flexing ChatGPT-4o's Diagnostic Muscle: Detection of Fractures in the Ossifying Pediatric Elbow on Radiographs.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Factors Associated with Lower Performance of Artificial Intelligence on Answering Undergraduate Medical Education Multiple-Choice Questions.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- The I-KAPCAM-AI-Q: a novel instrument for evaluating health care providers' AI awareness in Italy.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Chatbot Underperformance in Biology and Image-Based Questions in Medical Education.Journal of CME · 2025Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is not a recent phenomenon, but the latest advancements in this technology are making a significant impact across various fields of human knowledge. In medicine, this trend is no different, although it has developed at a slower pace. ChatGPT is an example of an AI-based algorithm capable of answering questions, interpreting phrases, and synthesizing complex information, potentially aiding and even replacing humans in various areas of social interest. Some studies have compared its performance in solving medical knowledge exams with medical students and professionals to verify AI accuracy. This study aimed to measure the performance of ChatGPT in answering questions from the Progress Test from 2021 to 2023. Methodology An observational study was conducted in which questions from the 2021 Progress Test and the regional tests (Southern Institutional Pedagogical Support Center II) of 2022 and 2023 were presented to ChatGPT 3.5. The results obtained were compared with the scores of first- to sixth-year medical students from over 120 Brazilian universities. All questions were presented sequentially, without any modification to their structure. After each question was presented, the platform's history was cleared, and the site was restarted. Results The platform achieved an average accuracy rate in 2021, 2022, and 2023 of 69.7%, 68.3%, and 67.2%, respectively, surpassing students from all medical years in the three tests evaluated, reinforcing findings in the current literature. The subject with the best score for the AI was Public Health, with a mean grade of 77.8%. Conclusions ChatGPT demonstrated the ability to answer medical questions with higher accuracy than humans, including students from the last year of medical school.
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.