Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41112890›Full record

ArticleMedical science educator2025

Factors Associated with Lower Performance of Artificial Intelligence on Answering Undergraduate Medical Education Multiple-Choice Questions.

Renato Ferretti, Joyce Santana Rizzi, Lorraine Silva Requena, Angelica Maria Bicudo, Pedro Tadao Hamamoto Filho

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science educator, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

5 authors.

Renato FerrettiDepartment of Structural and Functional Biology, Laboratory of Muscle Biology, Institute of Bioscience of Botucatu, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), São Paulo, Botucatu Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3944-1906
Joyce Santana RizziDepartment of Structural and Functional Biology, Laboratory of Muscle Biology, Institute of Bioscience of Botucatu, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), São Paulo, Botucatu Brazil.
Lorraine Silva RequenaDepartment of Structural and Functional Biology, Laboratory of Muscle Biology, Institute of Bioscience of Botucatu, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), São Paulo, Botucatu Brazil.
Angelica Maria BicudoSchool of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), São Paulo, Campinas Brazil.
Pedro Tadao Hamamoto FilhoBotucatu Medical School, Department of Neurosciences and Mental Health, São Paulo State University (UNESP), São Paulo, Botucatu Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence has been widely used to answer questions in the medical context. This study aimed to evaluate the performance, reliability, and precision of ChatGPT-4.0 in responding to multiple-choice questions (MCQs) previously administered to medical students. We conducted an observational and cross-sectional study to assess the performance of ChatGPT by analyzing its accuracy, examining associations with specific knowledge areas and Bloom's taxonomy levels, assessing the influence of the psychometric properties of the items, and investigating the effect of images on the results. From the eight examinations analyzed, chatbot performance varied from 46.7 to 90.0% on the first attempt, 47.5 to 90% on the second attempt, and 28.3 to 89.2% on the third attempt. The concordance rate varied from 56.2% to 62.0% with Cohen's kappa coefficients ranging from 0.071 to 0.217. On the second and third attempts, basic science had the highest scores (90.0 and 93.3%, respectively), whereas surgery (55.8%) and pediatrics (43.4%) had the lowest scores. In summary, the chatbot demonstrated poor performance that was inferior to its human counterparts in medical examinations and low reliability and precision in answering medical questions.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceChatGPT-4.0Large language modelMedical education assessmentProgress test

Identifiers

PMID41112890
PMCPMC12532555

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.