Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39185287›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Comparing Vision-Capable Models, GPT-4 and Gemini, With GPT-3.5 on Taiwan's Pulmonologist Exam.

Chih-Hsiung Chen, Kuang-Yu Hsieh, Kuo-En Huang, Hsien-Yun Lai

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Chih-Hsiung ChenDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Mennonite Christian Hospital, Hualien City, TWN.
Kuang-Yu HsiehDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Mennonite Christian Hospital, Hualien City, TWN.
Kuo-En HuangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Mennonite Christian Hospital, Hualien City, TWN.
Hsien-Yun LaiDepartment of Education and Research, Mennonite Christian Hospital, Hualien City, TWN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction The latest generation of large language models (LLMs) features multimodal capabilities, allowing them to interpret graphics, images, and videos, which are crucial in medical fields. This study investigates the vision capabilities of the next-generation Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4) and Google's Gemini. Methods To establish a comparative baseline, we used GPT-3.5, a model limited to text processing, and evaluated the performance of both GPT-4 and Gemini on questions from the Taiwan Specialist Board Exams in Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine. Our dataset included 1,100 questions from 2012 to 2023, with 100 questions per year. Of these, 1,059 were in pure text and 41 were text with images, with the majority in a non-English language and only six in pure English. Results For each annual exam consisting of 100 questions from 2013 to 2023, GPT-4 achieved scores of 66, 69, 51, 64, 72, 64, 66, 64, 63, 68, and 67, respectively. Gemini scored 45, 48, 45, 45, 46, 59, 54, 41, 53, 45, and 45, while GPT-3.5 scored 39, 33, 35, 36, 32, 33, 43, 28, 32, 33, and 36. Conclusions These results demonstrate that the newer LLMs with vision capabilities significantly outperform the text-only model. When a passing score of 60 was set, GPT-4 passed most exams and approached human performance.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencegeminigptlarge language modelspulmonologist examvision feature

Identifiers

PMID39185287
PMCPMC11344601

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.