ArticleCureus2024
Advancements in AI Medical Education: Assessing ChatGPT's Performance on USMLE-Style Questions Across Topics and Difficulty Levels.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Utility of ChatGPT for Medical Students on Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Rotations.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Medical Assessment: Reliability and Performance of Multimodal Large Language Models in a High-Stakes Licensing Examination.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Accuracy of ChatGPT and DeepSeek in answering clinical questions from the 2025 Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions/Heart Rhythm Society left atrial appendage occlusion guidelines.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Performance of 5 AI Models on United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Questions: Comparative Observational Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Informed AI Use on Clinical Competence of General Practitioners and Internists: Pre-Post Intervention Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Large Language Models Evaluation of Medical Licensing Examination Using GPT-4.0, ERNIE Bot 4.0, and GPT-4o.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- ChatGPT Versus DeepSeek: Assessing Artificial Intelligence Performance on Radiation Oncology Examination Questions.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- What's With All the Hype?: Applying Large Language Models in Neurology Education.Neurology. Education · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence Can Answer Postoperative Questions About Distal Radius Fractures-But Can Patients Understand the Answers?Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparative benchmarking of the DeepSeek large language model on medical tasks and clinical reasoning.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- 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 AI language models have been shown to achieve a passing score on certain imageless diagnostic tests of the USMLE. However, they have failed certain specialty-specific examinations. This suggests there may be a difference in AI ability by medical topic or question difficulty. This study evaluates the performance of two versions of ChatGPT, a popular language-based AI model, on USMLE-style questions across various medical topics. Methods A total of 900 USMLE-style multiple-choice questions were equally divided into 18 topics, categorized by exam type (step 1 vs. step 2), and copied from AMBOSS, a medical learning resource with large question banks. Questions that contained images, charts, and tables were excluded due to current AI capabilities. The questions were entered into ChatGPT-3.5 (version September 25, 2023) and ChatGPT-4 (version April 2023) for multiple trials, and performance data were recorded. The two AI models were compared against human test takers (AMBOSS users) by medical topic and question difficulty. Results Chat-GPT-4, AMBOSS users, and Chat-GPT-3.5 had accuracies of 71.33%, 54.38%, and 46.23% respectively. When comparing models, GPT-4 was a significant improvement demonstrating a 25% greater accuracy and 8% higher concordance between trials than GPT-3 (p<.001). The performance of GPT models was similar between step 1 and step 2 content. Both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 varied performance by medical topic (p=.027, p=.002). However, there was no clear pattern of variation. Performance for both GPT models and AMBOSS users declined as question difficulty increased (p<.001). However, the decline in accuracy was less pronounced for GPT-4. The accuracy of the GPT models showed less variability with question difficulty compared to AMBOSS users, with the average drop in accuracy from the easiest to hardest questions being 45% and 62%, respectively. Discussion ChatGPT-4 shows significant improvement over its predecessor, ChatGPT-3.5, in the medical education setting. It is the first ChatGPT model to surpass human performance on modified AMBOSS USMLE tests. While there was variation in performance by medical topic for both models, there was no clear pattern of discrepancy. ChatGPT-4's improved accuracy, concordance, performance on difficult questions, and consistency across topics are promising for its reliability and utility for medical learners. Conclusion ChatGPT-4's improvements highlight its potential as a valuable tool in medical education, surpassing human performance in some areas. The lack of a clear performance pattern by medical topic suggests that variability is more related to question complexity than specific knowledge gaps.
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.