ArticleJMIR medical education2025
Performance of Plug-In Augmented ChatGPT and Its Ability to Quantify Uncertainty: Simulation Study on the German Medical Board Examination.
Article in JMIR medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of AI-Generated Content in Medical Education: Systematic Review of the Impact on Critical Thinking Abilities of Medical Students.JMIR medical education · 2026Pooled it
- [Digitalization and artificial intelligence in intensive care and emergency medicine : German Society for Internal Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DGIIN) position paper on targeted introduction].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026Article
- Evaluating foundation models on official German medical licensing examinations: Implications for high-stakes assessment and AI-assisted medical education.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- The temporal changes in GPT-4 performance on UKMLA practice questions: educational and clinical implications.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Decoding high-order clinical correlations: a knowledge-driven large language model framework for specialized medical decision-making.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models on Four Core Medical School Courses: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Early identification of risk factors for obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome based on large language models.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Knowledge localization is associated with higher performance of domestic large language models in a Chinese radiation oncology examination.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Reframing ontology fact acquisition during large language model fine-tuning as a time-to-event process.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Performance of large language models on sleep medicine certification examination: a comprehensive multi-model analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Two-stage prompting framework with predefined verification steps for evaluating diagnostic reasoning tasks on two datasets.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The GPT-4 is a large language model (LLM) trained and fine-tuned on an extensive dataset. After the public release of its predecessor in November 2022, the use of LLMs has seen a significant spike in interest, and a multitude of potential use cases have been proposed. In parallel, however, important limitations have been outlined. Particularly, current LLMs encounter limitations, especially in symbolic representation and accessing contemporary data. The recent version of GPT-4, alongside newly released plugin features, has been introduced to mitigate some of these limitations. Objective: Before this background, this work aims to investigate the performance of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, GPT-4 with plugins, and GPT-4 with plugins using pretranslated English text on the German medical board examination. Recognizing the critical importance of quantifying uncertainty for LLM applications in medicine, we furthermore assess this ability and develop a new metric termed "confidence accuracy" to evaluate it. Methods: We used GPT-3.5, GPT-4, GPT-4 with plugins, and GPT-4 with plugins and translation to answer questions from the German medical board examination. Additionally, we conducted an analysis to assess how the models justify their answers, the accuracy of their responses, and the error structure of their answers. Bootstrapping and CIs were used to evaluate the statistical significance of our findings. Results: This study demonstrated that available GPT models, as LLM examples, exceeded the minimum competency threshold established by the German medical board for medical students to obtain board certification to practice medicine. Moreover, the models could assess the uncertainty in their responses, albeit exhibiting overconfidence. Additionally, this work unraveled certain justification and reasoning structures that emerge when GPT generates answers. Conclusions: The high performance of GPTs in answering medical questions positions it well for applications in academia and, potentially, clinical practice. Its capability to quantify uncertainty in answers suggests it could be a valuable artificial intelligence agent within the clinical decision-making loop. Nevertheless, significant challenges must be addressed before artificial intelligence agents can be robustly and safely implemented in the medical domain.
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.