ArticleCureus2025
ChatGPT Answers the 110-Question Laboratory Enzymology Student Exam: Pass or Fail?
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Chatbots like ChatGPT have attracted a lot of interest lately due to their ability to generate human-like responses. Their reliability and accuracy are still questionable, and they are the topic of many studies in different fields. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the knowledge of two versions of chatbots regarding laboratory enzymology and to compare it with the average knowledge of students for the purpose of considering the use of ChatGPT in providing answers in this field. Material and methods An exam with 110 questions covering four topics was answered by students and ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0. The accuracy of the answers of 52 students and ChatGPT was evaluated. The accuracy of answers between students and artificial intelligence was compared, and the percentage of passing the exam was 60%. All responses were reviewed by two authors with full interrater agreement. Results Total scores for students, ChatGPT-3.5, and ChatGPT-4.0 were 85.46%, 52.73%, and 74.55% (p < 0.05), whereby ChatGPT-4.0 achieved better results compared to the other chatbot. ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0 achieved the best results on questions about enzymes in metabolism. The lowest scores for both chatbots were observed in the laboratory analysis of enzymes. Conclusion ChatGPT showed average results in the Laboratory Enzymology exam and scored lower than students. This proved that chatbots could be a potential tool for learning and eventual implementation in higher and/or medical education with extensive optimization but still cannot replace a human.
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.