Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40483567›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2026

LLM-based generation of USMLE-style questions with ASPET/AMSPC knowledge objectives: All RAGs and no riches.

Thomas Thesen, Rupa Lalchandani Tuan, Joe Blumer, Michael W Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Thomas ThesenDepartment of Medical Education, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth, New Hampshire, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3793-438X
Rupa Lalchandani TuanDepartment: Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2525-4993
Joe BlumerDepartment of Cell and Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0020-3815
Michael W LeeDepartment of Medical Education, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth, New Hampshire, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8954-2057

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Educational MeasurementLicensure, MedicalPharmacology, ClinicalGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansLarge Language Modelsartificial intelligenceASPET/AMSPC knowledge objectivespharmacologyretrieval‐augmented generation

Identifiers

PMID40483567
PMCPMC13420880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.