ArticleCureus2024
Evaluating the Accuracy of ChatGPT in the Japanese Board-Certified Physiatrist Examination.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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 Generative artificial intelligence (AI), such as Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT), has shown potential in various medical applications, including answering licensing examination questions. However, its performance in rehabilitation medicine remains underexplored. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of ChatGPT4o in answering questions from the Japanese Board-Certified Physiatrist Examination and assess its potential as an educational and clinical support tool. Methods This study assessed the performance of ChatGPT4o on questions from the 2021-2023 Japanese Board-Certified Physiatrist Examinations. Questions were categorized into text- and image-based types and correct response rates were calculated. Errors were classified into informational, logical, or statistical. Results ChatGPT4o achieved correct response rates of 79.1% in 2021, 80.0% in 2022, and 86.3% in 2023, with an overall accuracy of 81.8%. The AI performed better on text-based (83.0%) than on image-based (70.0%) questions. Most errors (92.8%) were related to information. Conclusions ChatGPT4o demonstrated high accuracy in the Japanese Board-Certified Physiatrist Examination, particularly for text-based questions, demonstrating its potential as an educational tool. However, limitations in image interpretation and specialized topics indicate the need for further improvements for clinical application.
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.