Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Unlocking the Potential of Large Language Models for AI-Assisted Medical Education
Authors: Prabin Sharma, Kisan Thapa, Dikshya Thapa, Prastab Dhakal, Mala Deep Upadhaya, Santosh Adhikari, Salik Ram Khanal
Abstract: Artificial intelligence is gaining traction in more ways than ever before. The popularity of language models and AI-based businesses has soared since ChatGPT was made available to the general public via OpenAI. It is becoming increasingly common for people to use ChatGPT both professionally and personally. Considering the widespread use of ChatGPT and the reliance people place on it, this study determined how reliable ChatGPT can be for answering complex medical and clinical questions. Harvard University gross anatomy along with the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) questionnaire were used to accomplish the objective. The paper evaluated the obtained results using a 2-way ANOVA and posthoc analysis. Both showed systematic covariation between format and prompt. Furthermore, the physician adjudicators independently rated the outcome's accuracy, concordance, and insight. As a result of the analysis, ChatGPT-generated answers were found to be more context-oriented and represented a better model for deductive reasoning than regular Google search results. Furthermore, ChatGPT obtained 58.8% on logical questions and 60% on ethical questions. This means that the ChatGPT is approaching the passing range for logical questions and has crossed the threshold for ethical questions. The paper believes ChatGPT and other language learning models can be invaluable tools for e-learners; however, the study suggests that there is still room to improve their accuracy. In order to improve ChatGPT's performance in the future, further research is needed to better understand how it can answer different types of questions.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
Some bits of the article are not summarized yet, you can re-run the summarizing process by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Look for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.