ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Assessment Study of ChatGPT-3.5's Performance on the Final Polish Medical Examination: Accuracy in Answering 980 Questions.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 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
- Article
- Assessment of vaccine information accuracy across large language models.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Performance Evaluation of 18 Generative AI Models (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity) in 2024 Japanese Pharmacist Licensing Examination: Comparative Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Article
- Accuracy and Safety of ChatGPT-3.5 in Assessing Over-the-Counter Medication Use During Pregnancy: A Descriptive Comparative Study.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4 obstetric and gynecological knowledge.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- The performance of OpenAI ChatGPT-4 and Google Gemini in virology multiple-choice questions: a comparative analysis of English and Arabic responses.BMC research notes · 2024Article
- Human versus Artificial Intelligence: ChatGPT-4 Outperforming Bing, Bard, ChatGPT-3.5 and Humans in Clinical Chemistry Multiple-Choice Questions.Advances in medical education and practice · 2024Article
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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe use of artificial intelligence (AI) in education is dynamically growing, and models such as ChatGPT show potential in enhancing medical education. In Poland, to obtain a medical diploma, candidates must pass the Medical Final Examination, which consists of 200 questions with one correct answer per question, is administered in Polish, and assesses students' comprehensive medical knowledge and readiness for clinical practice. The aim of this study was to determine how ChatGPT-3.5 handles questions included in this exam.
methodsThis study considered 980 questions from five examination sessions of the Medical Final Examination conducted by the Medical Examination Center in the years 2022-2024. The analysis included the field of medicine, the difficulty index of the questions, and their type, namely theoretical versus case-study questions.
resultsThe average correct answer rate achieved by ChatGPT for the five examination sessions hovered around 60% and was lower (
conclusionsThis study indicates that ChatGPT-3.5 can be an effective tool for assisting in passing the final medical exam, but the results should be interpreted cautiously. It is recommended to further verify the correctness of the answers using various AI tools.
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.