ArticleCureus2025
ChatGPT (GPT-4V) Performance on the Healthcare Information Technologist Examination in Japan.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Pilot Study Comparing Emergency Physician and Artificial Intelligence-supported Interpretations of Electrocardiograms.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) has developed rapidly and is used in many fields, including healthcare informatics. This study evaluated ChatGPT (GPT-4V)'s performance on the Healthcare Information Technologist (HCIT) certification exam in Japan, which assesses certified professionals who work with electronic health records to improve patient care. Methodology Four hundred seventy-six questions from the HCIT exam were targeted over three years. ChatGPT (GPT-4V) was tested on its ability to answer questions from an HCIT exam to determine if it could perform as well as or better than aspirants taking the exam. Moreover, its performance was evaluated for each academic category, format, presence or absence of images, and calculations. Results The mean correct answer rate for all questions was 84%. ChatGPT achieved the exam passing criteria. The correct answer rate for simple-choice (A-type) questions was higher than that for multiple-choice (X2-type) questions (
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.