ArticleMedical science educator2025
Can ChatGPT-4o Really Pass Medical Science Exams? A Pragmatic Analysis Using Novel Questions.
Article in Medical science educator, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of ChatGPT in personalized glucose-lowering strategy development: a clinician-based comparative study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Large language models for patient education prior to interventional radiology procedures: a comparative study.CVIR endovascular · 2025Article
- Foundation models for radiology-the position of the AI for Health Imaging (AI4HI) network.Insights into imaging · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of large language models in clinical diagnosis: performance evaluation across common and complex medical cases.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Validating large language models against manual information extraction from case reports of drug-induced parkinsonism in patients with schizophrenia spectrum and mood disorders: a proof of concept study.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- AI versus human-generated multiple-choice questions for medical education: a cohort study in a high-stakes examination.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Chatbot Underperformance in Biology and Image-Based Questions in Medical Education.Journal of CME · 2025Article
- Article
- Education and Training Assessment and Artificial Intelligence. A Pragmatic Guide for Educators.British journal of biomedical science · 2024Review
- 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ChatGPT apparently shows excellent performance on high-level professional exams such as those involved in medical assessment and licensing. This has raised concerns that ChatGPT could be used for academic misconduct, especially in unproctored online exams. However, ChatGPT has previously shown weaker performance on questions with pictures, and there have been concerns that ChatGPT's performance may be artificially inflated by the public nature of the sample questions tested, meaning they likely formed part of the training materials for ChatGPT. This led to suggestions that cheating could be mitigated by using novel questions for every sitting of an exam and making extensive use of picture-based questions. These approaches remain untested. Here, we tested the performance of ChatGPT-4o on existing medical licensing exams in the UK and USA, and on novel questions based on those exams. ChatGPT-4o scored 94% on the United Kingdom Medical Licensing Exam Applied Knowledge Test and 89.9% on the United States Medical Licensing Exam Step 1. Performance was not diminished when the questions were rewritten into novel versions, or on completely novel questions which were not based on any existing questions. ChatGPT did show reduced performance on questions containing images when the answer options were added to an image as text labels. These data demonstrate that the performance of ChatGPT continues to improve and that secure testing environments are required for the valid assessment of both foundational and higher order learning. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-025-02293-z.
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.