ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
ChatGPT-4.0 and Medical Students: A Recognition-Gated Comparative Evaluation on Image-Based Medical Examinations.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models like vision-capable ChatGPT 4.0, is increasingly shaping medical education. While these systems show promise for automated feedback and adaptive assessments, their performance in visually intensive, image-based disciplines remains insufficiently studied. Objective: This cohort study aims to compare the performance of ChatGPT 4.0 and undergraduate medical students on standardized, image-based multiple-choice questions in Anatomy, Pathology, and Pediatrics. Standardized exams were administered to second-, third-, and fifth-year students, and the same questions were submitted to ChatGPT 4.0 using a two-step deterministic and stochastic protocol. Items with images that ChatGPT 4.0 failed to recognize were excluded. The statistical unit of analysis was the question, and all questions were analyzed as independent question-level observations within each domain. Paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used as appropriate, and subgroup analyses were restricted to questions with a discrimination index ≥ 0.1. Results: Of 90 questions, 52 were eligible for the primary comparative analysis after exclusion of items in which ChatGPT 4.0 failed image recognition. ChatGPT 4.0 significantly underperformed students in Anatomy (mean difference = -0.387, p < 0.00001, Cohen's d = 2.10) but outperformed students in Pediatrics (mean difference = +0.174, p = 0.00013, Cohen's d = 0.81); these findings were similar or stronger in discrimination-based subgroup analyses. No Pathology items were eligible for comparative analysis because ChatGPT 4.0 failed image recognition for all Pathology images; therefore, no inference about comparative downstream reasoning can be made for Pathology under this protocol. In the global end-to-end analysis, which scored image-recognition failures as incorrect, ChatGPT 4.0 accuracy was 17.3% in Anatomy, 84.9% in Pediatrics, and 0% in Pathology. Conclusion: These findings demonstrate marked variability in ChatGPT's visual reasoning across medical domains, underscoring the need for multimodal integration and critical evaluation of AI applications before adoption in image-dependent medical education settings.
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.