ArticleMedical science educator2025
Factors Associated with Lower Performance of Artificial Intelligence on Answering Undergraduate Medical Education Multiple-Choice Questions.
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.
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.
- Performance and Hallucination Analysis of Large Language Models on European Anesthesiology Examinations: Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
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
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
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.