ArticleCureus2024
Evaluating the Performance of ChatGPT in the Prescribing Safety Assessment: Implications for Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Prescribing.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A systematic review of the limitations of large language models in generating healthcare content.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of artificial intelligence platforms and drug interaction screening databases using real-world patient data.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, models like Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) are increasingly being evaluated for their potential applications in healthcare. The Prescribing Safety Assessment (PSA) is a standardised test for junior physicians in the UK to evaluate prescribing competence. This study aims to assess ChatGPT's ability to pass the PSA and its performance across different exam sections. Methodology ChatGPT (version GPT-4) was tested on four official PSA practice papers, each containing 30 questions, in three independent trials per paper, with answers evaluated using official PSA mark schemes. Performance was measured by calculating overall percentage scores and comparing them to the pass marks provided for each practice paper. Subsection performance was also analysed to identify strengths and weaknesses. Results ChatGPT achieved mean scores of 257/300 (85.67%), 236/300 (78.67%), 199/300 (66.33%), and 233/300 (77.67%) across the four papers, consistently surpassing the pass marks where available. ChatGPT performed well in sections requiring factual recall, such as "Adverse Drug Reactions", scoring 63/72 (87.50%), and "Communicating Information", scoring 63/72 (88.89%). However, it struggled in "Data Interpretation", scoring 32/72 (44.44%), showing variability across trials and indicating limitations in handling more complex clinical reasoning tasks. Conclusion While ChatGPT demonstrated strong potential in passing the PSA and excelling in sections requiring factual knowledge, its limitations in data interpretation highlight the current gaps in AI's ability to fully replicate human clinical judgement. ChatGPT shows promise in supporting safe prescribing, particularly in areas prone to human error, such as drug interactions and communicating correct information. However, due to its variability in more complex reasoning tasks, ChatGPT is not yet ready to replace human prescribers and should instead serve as a supplemental tool in clinical 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.