Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40116759›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2025

Performance of Plug-In Augmented ChatGPT and Its Ability to Quantify Uncertainty: Simulation Study on the German Medical Board Examination.

Julian Madrid, Philipp Diehl, Mischa Selig, Bernd Rolauffs, Felix Patricius Hans, Hans-Jörg Busch, Tobias Scheef, Leo Benning

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Julian MadridDepartment of Cardiology, Pneumology, Angiology, Acute Geriatrics and Intensive Care, Ortenau Klinikum, Klosterstrasse 18, Lahr, 77933, Germany, 49 7821932403.ORCID 0000-0001-5135-6873
Philipp DiehlDepartment of Cardiology, Pneumology, Angiology, Acute Geriatrics and Intensive Care, Ortenau Klinikum, Klosterstrasse 18, Lahr, 77933, Germany, 49 7821932403.ORCID 0000-0001-5495-8511
Mischa SeligFaculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0004-6194-8871
Bernd RolauffsFaculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3275-8196
Felix Patricius HansFaculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7164-7624
Hans-Jörg BuschFaculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3897-1908
Tobias Scheef *Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0002-9391-9640
Leo Benning *Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8429-9702

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Educational MeasurementLanguageSpecialty BoardsGenerative Artificial IntelligenceGermanyHumansUncertaintyartificial intelligenceboard licensing examinationbootstrappingChatGPTconfidence intervalexaminationexperimentalgenerative AIGPT-4large language modelLLMmedical educationprofessional educationstudent

Identifiers

PMID40116759
PMCPMC11951815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.