ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
The performance of AI in medical examinations: an exploration of ChatGPT in ultrasound medical education.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of large language models in the Chinese National Medical Licensing Examinations and Beyond: Scoping review.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- ChatGPT-4o with faculty guidance outperforms AI-only and traditional learning in ultrasonography training: a randomized trial.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Dentomaxillofacial Radiology Education: Innovations and Perspectives.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of ChatGPT in the context of China's Intermediate Professional Technical Qualification Examination for Ultrasound Medicine, exploring its potential role in ultrasound medical education. Methods: A total of 100 questions, comprising 70 single-choice and 30 multiple-choice questions, were selected from the examination's question bank. These questions were categorized into four groups: basic knowledge, relevant clinical knowledge, professional knowledge, and professional practice. ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 were tested, and accuracy was measured based on the proportion of correct answers for each version. Results: ChatGPT 3.5 achieved an accuracy of 35.7% for single-choice and 30.0% for multiple-choice questions, while version 4.0 improved to 61.4 and 50.0%, respectively. Both versions performed better in basic knowledge questions but showed limitations in professional practice-related questions. Version 4.0 demonstrated significant improvements across all categories compared to version 3.5, but it still underperformed when compared to resident doctors in certain areas. Conclusion: While ChatGPT did not meet the passing criteria for the Intermediate Professional Technical Qualification Examination in Ultrasound Medicine, its strong performance in basic medical knowledge suggests potential as a supplementary tool in medical education. However, its limitations in addressing professional practice tasks need to be addressed.
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.