ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2024
Systematic review of ChatGPT accuracy and performance in Iran's medical licensing exams: A brief report.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications, Challenges, and Prospects of Generative Artificial Intelligence Empowering Medical Education: Scoping Review.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Evaluating large language models using national endodontic specialty examination questions: are they ready for real-world dentistry?BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Article
- ChatGPT's Performance on Iran's Medical Licensing Exams.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 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
ChatGPT has demonstrated significant potential in various aspects of medicine, including its performance on licensing examinations. In this study, we systematically investigated ChatGPT's performance in Iranian medical exams and assessed the quality of the included studies using a previously published assessment checklist. The study found that ChatGPT achieved an accuracy range of 32-72% on basic science exams, 34-68.5% on pre-internship exams, and 32-84% on residency exams. Notably, its performance was generally higher when the input was provided in English compared to Persian. One study reported a 40% accuracy rate on an endodontic board exam. To establish ChatGPT as a supplementary tool in medical education and clinical practice, we suggest that dedicated guidelines and checklists are needed to ensure high-quality and consistent research in this emerging field.
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.