ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2026
LLM-based generation of USMLE-style questions with ASPET/AMSPC knowledge objectives: All RAGs and no riches.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using assessment in pharmacology to drive learning in the right direction.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Educational Value of Artificial Intelligence in Pharmacotherapy Education.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-based chatbots improve the efficiency of course orientation among medical students: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- A generative AI teaching assistant for personalized learning in medical education.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- ChatGPT in Medical Education: Bibliometric and Visual Analysis.JMIR medical education · 2025Review
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
Developing high-quality pharmacology multiple-choice questions (MCQs) is challenging in large part due to continually evolving therapeutic guidelines and the complex integration of basic science and clinical medicine in this subject area. Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT-4 have repeatedly demonstrated proficiency in answering medical licensing exam questions, prompting interest in their use for generating high stakes exam-style questions. This study evaluates the performance of ChatGPT-4o in generating USMLE-style pharmacology questions based on American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics/Association of Medical School Pharmacology Chairs (ASPET/AMSPC) knowledge objectives and assesses the impact of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) on question accuracy and quality. Using standardized prompts, 50 questions (25 RAG and 25 non-RAG) were generated and subsequently evaluated by expert reviewers. Results showed higher accuracy for non-RAG questions (88.0% vs. 69.2%), though the difference was not statistically significant. No significant differences were observed in other quality dimensions. These findings suggest that sophisticated LLMs can generate high-quality pharmacology questions efficiently without RAG, though human oversight remains crucial.
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.