ArticleSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2025
Anatomy exam model for the circulatory and respiratory systems using GPT-4: a medical school study.
Article in Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA, 2025. 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.
- Review
- Comparison of artificial intelligence and lecturers' grading in the evaluation of handwritten open-ended anatomy examinations.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2026Article
- Critical evaluation of large language models for human cross-sectional anatomy identification: implications for collaborative intelligence.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Text to image generators for anatomical illustrations: potential and limitations.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in anatomy education: a systematic review of ChatGPT's effectiveness as a learning tool.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of anatomy multiple-choice questions (MCQs) generated by GPT-4, focused on their methodological appropriateness and alignment with the cognitive levels defined by Bloom's revised taxonomy to enhance assessment.
methodsThe assessment questions developed for medical students were created utilizing GPT-4, comprising 240 MCQs organized into subcategories consistent with Bloom's revised taxonomy. When designing prompts to create MCQs, details about the lesson's purpose, learning objectives, and students' prior experiences were included to ensure the questions were contextually appropriate. A set of 30 MCQs was randomly selected from the generated questions for testing. A total of 280 students participated in the examination, which assessed the difficulty index of the MCQs, the item discrimination index, and the overall test difficulty level. Expert anatomists examined the taxonomy accuracy of GPT-4's questions.
resultsStudents achieved a median score of 50 (range, 36.67-60) points on the test. The test's internal consistency, assessed by KR-20, was 0.737. The average difficulty of the test was 0.5012. Results show difficulty and discrimination indices for each AI-generated question. Expert anatomists' taxonomy-based classifications matched GPT-4's 26.6%. Meanwhile, 80.9% of students found the questions were clear, and 85.8% showed interest in retaking the assessment exam.
conclusionThis study demonstrates GPT-4's significant potential for generating medical education exam questions. While it effectively assesses basic knowledge recall, it fails to sufficiently evaluate higher-order cognitive processes outlined in Bloom's revised taxonomy. Future research should consider alternative methods that combine AI with expert evaluation and specialized multimodal models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40495075What 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.