ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2025
Artificial Intelligence Meets Item Analysis (AI meets IA): A Study of Chatbot Training and Performance in detecting and correcting MCQ Flaws.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of Artificial Intelligence in Undergraduate Medical Student Assessment, Scientific Writing & Peer Review: Promise, Pitfalls, and the Need for Educational Governance.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Beyond Red Pen: Comparing the machine vs human grading of reflective assignments on clinical reasoning in Dermatology undergraduate students.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Psychometric Evaluation of Forensic Medicine Multiple-Choice Questions: An Item Analysis From a Nepali Medical College.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the potential of AI-powered chatbots, specifically ChatGPT, in identifying and correcting flaws in MCQs. Methods: A three-phase-Interventional study was conducted from February to August 2023 at Riphah International University, Islamabad. In Phase-1, flawed MCQs were selected from the NBME guide and fed into ChatGPT. ChatGPT identified item flaws and suggested corrections. In Phase-2, ChatGPT was trained to detect flaws in MCQs with text data from the NBME item writing guide. In Phase-3, ChatGPT was again tested to detect flaws and correct MCQs. Data were analyzed using SPSS, Version 26 and presented using percentages and McNemar's test with exact conditional method. Results: ChatGPT could identify and correct flaws such as use of "None of the above," "Grammatical cues," "absolute terms," and "inconsistently presented numerical data." However, it struggled with flaws related to "complicated stems," "long or complex options," and "vague frequency terms." After training, ChatGPT became better at identifying and correcting flaws related to complicated stems and absolute terms. It also struggled with recognizing "nonparallel options," "convergence," and "word repetition," both before and after training. ChatGPT's performance deteriorated during peak hours. The test of significance showed no measurable increase in ChatGPT's efficiency in detecting item flaws (p = 1.00) and correcting them (p = 0.125). Conclusion: AI is revolutionizing industries and improving efficiency, but limitations exist in complex conversations, analysis, accuracy, and error prevention. Ongoing research is vital to unlocking AI's potential, especially in education.
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.