ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating the Use of ChatGPT 3.5 and Bard as Self-Assessment Tools for Short Answer Questions in Undergraduate Ophthalmology.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ChatGPT 3.5 and Google Bard as tools for self-assessment of short answer questions (SAQs) in ophthalmology for undergraduate medical students. METHODOLOGY: A total of 261 SAQs were randomly selected from previous university examination papers and publicly available ophthalmology question banks. The questions were classified according to the competency-based medical education (CBME) curriculum of the National Medical Commission (NMC) of India into three categories: short note task-oriented questions (SNTO, n = 169), short note reasoning questions (SNRQ, n = 15), and applied aspect SAQs (SN Applied, n = 77). Image-based questions were excluded. Three ophthalmologists collaboratively developed model answers for each question. The same questions were then submitted to ChatGPT 3.5 and Google Bard. The AI-generated responses were independently evaluated by three ophthalmologists using a 3-point scale based on correct diagnosis, accuracy of content, and relevance. The scores were compiled, and the data were analyzed to compare the overall and category-wise performance of the two AI tools.
resultsOut of a total possible score of 783 (261 questions × 3 points), ChatGPT 3.5 scored 696 (88.8%), while Bard scored 685 (87.5%). Although the overall performance difference was insignificant, ChatGPT 3.5 performed significantly better in the SNTO category. However, both AI tools produced poor-quality or inadequate answers for a subset of questions: 50 (19%) by ChatGPT 3.5 and 44 (16.8%) by Bard. Some responses lacked essential information, even for high-yield topics.
conclusionChatGPT 3.5 and Bard can generate accurate and relevant responses to ophthalmology SAQs in most cases. ChatGPT 3.5 demonstrated slightly better performance, particularly for task-oriented questions, suggesting it may be a more effective tool for undergraduate students' self-assessment. However, due to a notable error rate (~20%), AI-generated responses should not be used in isolation and must be cross-referenced with standard textbooks. These tools best suit rapid information retrieval during the early study phases.
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.