ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Assessing the Performance of Chatbots on the Taiwan Psychiatry Licensing Examination Using the Rasch Model.
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 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.
- Clinical Plausibility in Large Language Model Robustness Testing for Medicine: A Scoping Review.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Impact of authoritative and subjective cues on large language model reliability for clinical inquiries: an experimental study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Ethical aspects of the application of artificial intelligence in psychiatry.Postepy psychiatrii neurologii · 2025Review
- Comparative Assessment of Large Language Models in Optics and Refractive Surgery: Performance on Multiple-Choice Questions.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Potential of ChatGPT in youth mental health emergency triage: Comparative analysis with clinicians.PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2025Article
- Evaluating chatbots in psychiatry: Rasch-based insights into clinical knowledge and reasoning.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe potential and limitations of chatbots in medical education and clinical decision support, particularly in specialized fields like psychiatry, remain unknown. By using the Rasch model, our study aimed to evaluate the performance of various state-of-the-art chatbots on psychiatry licensing exam questions to explore their strengths and weaknesses.
methodsWe assessed the performance of 22 leading chatbots, selected based on LMArena benchmark rankings, using 100 multiple-choice questions from the 2024 Taiwan psychiatry licensing examination, a nationally standardized test required for psychiatric licensure in Taiwan. Chatbot responses were scored for correctness, and we used the Rasch model to evaluate chatbot ability.
resultsChatbots released after February 2024 passed the exam, with ChatGPT-o1-preview achieving the highest score of 85. ChatGPT-o1-preview showed a statistically significant superiority in ability (
conclusionsChatbot technology could be a valuable tool for medical education and clinical decision support in psychiatry, and as technology continues to advance, these models are likely to play an increasingly integral role in psychiatric practice.
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.