ArticleScientific reports2025
GPT-4 shows comparable performance to human examiners in ranking open-text answers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Can GPT-4 replace human examiners? To address this question we explore the performance of GPT-4 as an examiner of answers to open-text questions. We formulate questions and sample solutions in the field of macroeconomics and collect answers from cohorts of undergraduate students. We then conduct a fair competition between GPT-4 and human experts, employing their expertise to assess the quality of the answers. We observe that the substitution of GPT-4 for a human examiner does not decrease inter-rater reliability on tasks that rank the quality of answers. We run checks on potential biases (whether GPT-4 prefers AI-generated or lengthy answers). We find no consistent evidence of such biases. Our findings are robust to tilting the competition to one side's advantage, by using inferior or advanced prompting strategies. Our results are more attenuated on tasks where GPT-4 assigns points to student answers. Here, GPT-4 shows a bias towards longer answers. Overall, our study cautiously supports the utilization of GPT-4 as an assistant for automated grading systems, particularly those where answers are ranked according to their quality.
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.