ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of GPT-5 Responses With the Official Results of the Polish Specialized Psychiatric Examination in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploratory study of large language models in surgical decision-making for lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter analysis based on multisource clinical information.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiology Examination: A Comparative Study of Physicians, ChatGPT-4, and ChatGPT-5.Cureus · 2026Article
- Comparative Performance of ChatGPT-5 and Gemini 2.5 on the Official Clinical Diabetology Specialty Examination.Cureus · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly language models such as ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA), is becoming increasingly important in medical education and knowledge assessment. Prior studies have demonstrated the growing effectiveness of AI in preparing students for medical examinations, including the Medical Final Examination (Lekarski Egzamin Końcowy (LEK)) of Poland and the National Specialty Examination across various disciplines. This raises important questions regarding its potential role as a tool to support specialist training. Objective The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the advanced GPT-5 model in addressing problems in child and adolescent psychiatry. The focus is on the accuracy of answers, their correctness, and the model's self-declared confidence levels to assess its potential efficacy in education. Methodology The study analyzed the official spring 2025 National Specialty Examination (Państwowy Egzamin Specjalizacyjny (PES)) of Poland in child and adolescent psychiatry. The exam consisted of 120 multiple-choice questions with a single correct answer. GPT-5 was familiarized with the examination rules and then presented with the questions in the Polish language. Answers were evaluated using the official Centre for Medical Examination (CEM) key. In addition, the model provided a confidence rating for each answer on a five-point scale. Questions were categorized as either clinical or theoretical. Statistical analysis was conducted using the chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Results GPT-5 answered 97 questions correctly (80.8%), surpassing the required passing threshold. No significant difference was observed between the accuracy of responses to clinical versus theoretical questions (p = 0.399). However, correct answers were significantly more likely when the model reported higher confidence levels (p = 0.012). Conclusions GPT-5 demonstrated strong performance in the National Specialty Examination of Poland in child and adolescent psychiatry, supporting its potential as a supplementary tool in specialist education. Confidence ratings may provide an additional metric for evaluating the reliability of answers. Nevertheless, broader integration of AI in medical education requires experts overseeing the process and further research across diverse medical disciplines.
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.