ArticleAnatomical sciences education2026
Is artificial intelligence getting better at anatomy? A two-year review of ChatGPT's free public versions.
Article in Anatomical sciences education, 2026. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence and large language models have significantly influenced medical education by enhancing learning experiences. While previous studies have assessed ChatGPT's performance on anatomy-related questions, a notable gap remains in understanding its accuracy over time. This longitudinal study evaluated the progression of ChatGPT's accuracy using 120 five-option multiple-choice questions covering anatomical systems, written by anatomy faculty members. Incorrect responses were categorized as informational, logical, or combined errors, while correct responses were genuine or guessed (selecting the correct option despite providing incorrect explanatory content). Performance was further evaluated in relation to the characteristics of questions and their cognitive levels according to Bloom's Taxonomy. Following a deliberate interval of approximately 2 years, the same set was administered to ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4o, and ChatGPT-5 without providing feedback. Temporal differences in accuracy and reasoning were analyzed using Cochran's Q test. Correct-response rates increased significantly across versions, from 45.8% (ChatGPT-3.5) to 73.3% (ChatGPT-4o) and 86.7% (ChatGPT-5) (Q = 55.433, p < 0.001), accompanied by reductions in combined errors and guessed correct. Informational errors remained predominant, accounting for 47/65 (72.3%), 26/32 (81.25%), and 12/16 (75.0%) of incorrect responses in ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4o, and ChatGPT-5, respectively. Performance improved significantly across successive versions at both lower and higher cognitive levels (Q = 40.478, p < 0.001; Q = 16.095, p < 0.001, respectively). The 2-year evolution of ChatGPT's anatomical knowledge highlights its potential as a supplementary resource for anatomy education and individualized learning. This study provides modest evidence of progressive improvements in anatomical accuracy and reasoning across successive model versions, suggesting that continued refinement may further enhance reliability.
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.