ArticleJMIR AI2025
Evaluation of ChatGPT Performance on Emergency Medicine Board Examination Questions: Observational Study.
Article in JMIR AI, 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.
- Article
- Large language models in emergency medicine education: opportunities, challenges, and implementation pathways.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Promoting xenomorphic patient-facing AIs: The case against anthropomorphism in medical AIs.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Reporting guidelines for studies involving generative artificial intelligence applications: what do I use, and when?NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT's performance on emergency medicine board examination questions.Turkish journal of emergency medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The ever-evolving field of medicine has highlighted the potential for ChatGPT as an assistive platform. However, its use in medical board examination preparation and completion remains unclear. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of a custom-modified version of ChatGPT-4, tailored with emergency medicine board examination preparatory materials (Anki flashcard deck), compared to its default version and previous iteration (3.5). The goal was to assess the accuracy of ChatGPT-4 answering board-style questions and its suitability as a tool to aid students and trainees in standardized examination preparation. Methods: A comparative analysis was conducted using a random selection of 598 questions from the Rosh In-Training Examination Question Bank. The subjects of the study included three versions of ChatGPT: the Default, a Custom, and ChatGPT-3.5. The accuracy, response length, medical discipline subgroups, and underlying causes of error were analyzed. Results: The Custom version did not demonstrate a significant improvement in accuracy over the Default version (P=.61), although both significantly outperformed ChatGPT-3.5 (P<.001). The Default version produced significantly longer responses than the Custom version, with the mean (SD) values being 1371 (444) and 929 (408), respectively (P<.001). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant difference in the performance across different medical subdisciplines between the versions (P>.05 in all cases). Both the versions of ChatGPT-4 had similar underlying error types (P>.05 in all cases) and had a 99% predicted probability of passing while ChatGPT-3.5 had an 85% probability. Conclusions: The findings suggest that while newer versions of ChatGPT exhibit improved performance in emergency medicine board examination preparation, specific enhancement with a comprehensive Anki flashcard deck on the topic does not significantly impact accuracy. The study highlights the potential of ChatGPT-4 as a tool for medical education, capable of providing accurate support across a wide range of topics in emergency medicine in its default form.
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.