ArticleJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2025
While GPT-3.5 is unable to pass the Physician Licensing Exam in Taiwan, GPT-4 successfully meets the criteria.
Article in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigates the performance of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 in answering medical questions from Taiwan's Physician Licensing Exam, ranging from basic medical knowledge to specialized clinical topics. It aims to understand these artificial intelligence (AI) models' capabilities in a non-English context, specifically traditional Chinese.
methodsThe study incorporated questions from the Taiwan Physician Licensing Exam in 2022, excluding image-based queries. Each question was manually input into ChatGPT, and responses were compared with official answers from Taiwan's Ministry of Examination. Differences across specialties and question types were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher's exact tests.
resultsChatGPT-3.5 achieved an average accuracy of 67.7% in basic medical sciences and 53.2% in clinical medicine. Meanwhile, ChatGPT-4 significantly outperformed ChatGPT-3.5, with average accuracies of 91.9% and 90.7%, respectively. ChatGPT-3.5 scored above 60.0% in seven out of 10 basic medical science subjects and three of 14 clinical subjects, while ChatGPT-4 scored above 60.0% in every subject. The type of question did not significantly affect accuracy rates.
conclusionChatGPT-3.5 showed proficiency in basic medical sciences but was less reliable in clinical medicine, whereas ChatGPT-4 demonstrated strong capabilities in both areas. However, their proficiency varied across different specialties. The type of question had minimal impact on performance. This study highlights the potential of AI models in medical education and non-English languages examination and the need for cautious and informed implementation in educational settings due to variability across specialties.
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.