Performance of ChatGPT, Bard, Claude, and Bing on the Peruvian National Licensing Medical Examination: a cross-sectional study.

IF 9.3 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-20 DOI:10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.30
Betzy Clariza Torres-Zegarra, Wagner Rios-Garcia, Alvaro Micael Ñaña-Cordova, Karen Fatima Arteaga-Cisneros, Xiomara Cristina Benavente Chalco, Marina Atena Bustamante Ordoñez, Carlos Jesus Gutierrez Rios, Carlos Alberto Ramos Godoy, Kristell Luisa Teresa Panta Quezada, Jesus Daniel Gutierrez-Arratia, Javier Alejandro Flores-Cohaila
{"title":"Performance of ChatGPT, Bard, Claude, and Bing on the Peruvian National Licensing Medical Examination: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Betzy Clariza Torres-Zegarra, Wagner Rios-Garcia, Alvaro Micael Ñaña-Cordova, Karen Fatima Arteaga-Cisneros, Xiomara Cristina Benavente Chalco, Marina Atena Bustamante Ordoñez, Carlos Jesus Gutierrez Rios, Carlos Alberto Ramos Godoy, Kristell Luisa Teresa Panta Quezada, Jesus Daniel Gutierrez-Arratia, Javier Alejandro Flores-Cohaila","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.30","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We aimed to describe the performance and evaluate the educational value of justifications provided by artificial intelligence chatbots, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Bard, Claude, and Bing, on the Peruvian National Medical Licensing Examination (P-NLME).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a cross-sectional analytical study. On July 25, 2023, each multiple-choice question (MCQ) from the P-NLME was entered into each chatbot (GPT-3, GPT-4, Bing, Bard, and Claude) 3 times. Then, 4 medical educators categorized the MCQs in terms of medical area, item type, and whether the MCQ required Peru-specific knowledge. They assessed the educational value of the justifications from the 2 top performers (GPT-4 and Bing).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GPT-4 scored 86.7% and Bing scored 82.2%, followed by Bard and Claude, and the historical performance of Peruvian examinees was 55%. Among the factors associated with correct answers, only MCQs that required Peru-specific knowledge had lower odds (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.61), whereas the remaining factors showed no associations. In assessing the educational value of justifications provided by GPT-4 and Bing, neither showed any significant differences in certainty, usefulness, or potential use in the classroom.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among chatbots, GPT-4 and Bing were the top performers, with Bing performing better at Peru-specific MCQs. Moreover, the educational value of justifications provided by the GPT-4 and Bing could be deemed appropriate. However, it is essential to start addressing the educational value of these chatbots, rather than merely their performance on examinations.</p>","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":"20 ","pages":"30"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11009012/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.30","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: We aimed to describe the performance and evaluate the educational value of justifications provided by artificial intelligence chatbots, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Bard, Claude, and Bing, on the Peruvian National Medical Licensing Examination (P-NLME).

Methods: This was a cross-sectional analytical study. On July 25, 2023, each multiple-choice question (MCQ) from the P-NLME was entered into each chatbot (GPT-3, GPT-4, Bing, Bard, and Claude) 3 times. Then, 4 medical educators categorized the MCQs in terms of medical area, item type, and whether the MCQ required Peru-specific knowledge. They assessed the educational value of the justifications from the 2 top performers (GPT-4 and Bing).

Results: GPT-4 scored 86.7% and Bing scored 82.2%, followed by Bard and Claude, and the historical performance of Peruvian examinees was 55%. Among the factors associated with correct answers, only MCQs that required Peru-specific knowledge had lower odds (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.61), whereas the remaining factors showed no associations. In assessing the educational value of justifications provided by GPT-4 and Bing, neither showed any significant differences in certainty, usefulness, or potential use in the classroom.

Conclusion: Among chatbots, GPT-4 and Bing were the top performers, with Bing performing better at Peru-specific MCQs. Moreover, the educational value of justifications provided by the GPT-4 and Bing could be deemed appropriate. However, it is essential to start addressing the educational value of these chatbots, rather than merely their performance on examinations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
ChatGPT、Bard、Claude和Bing在秘鲁国家执照医学考试中的表现:一项横断面研究。
目的:我们旨在描述人工智能聊天机器人(包括GPT-3.5、GPT-4、Bard、Claude和Bing)在秘鲁国家医学执照考试(P-NLME)中的表现并评估其提供的证明的教育价值。方法:采用横断面分析研究。在2023年7月25日,将P-NLME中的每个选择题(MCQ)分别输入到每个聊天机器人(GPT-3、GPT-4、Bing、Bard和Claude)中3次。然后,4名医学教育工作者根据医学领域、项目类型以及MCQ是否需要秘鲁特定知识对MCQ进行分类。他们评估了两个表现最好的(GPT-4和Bing)的理由的教育价值。结果:GPT-4得分86.7%,Bing得分82.2%,Bard和Claude得分次之,秘鲁考生历史成绩为55%。在与正确答案相关的因素中,只有要求秘鲁特定知识的mcq具有较低的几率(优势比,0.23;95%可信区间为0.09-0.61),其余因素无相关性。在评估GPT-4和Bing提供的论证的教育价值时,两者在确定性、有用性或课堂上的潜在用途方面都没有显示出任何显著差异。结论:在聊天机器人中,GPT-4和Bing是表现最好的,Bing在秘鲁特定的mcq上表现更好。此外,GPT-4和Bing提供的论证的教育价值可以被认为是适当的。然而,有必要开始考虑这些聊天机器人的教育价值,而不仅仅是它们在考试中的表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
32
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions aims to provide readers the state-of-the art practical information on the educational evaluation for health professions so that to increase the quality of undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education. It is specialized in educational evaluation including adoption of measurement theory to medical health education, promotion of high stakes examination such as national licensing examinations, improvement of nationwide or international programs of education, computer-based testing, computerized adaptive testing, and medical health regulatory bodies. Its field comprises a variety of professions that address public medical health as following but not limited to: Care workers Dental hygienists Dental technicians Dentists Dietitians Emergency medical technicians Health educators Medical record technicians Medical technologists Midwives Nurses Nursing aides Occupational therapists Opticians Oriental medical doctors Oriental medicine dispensers Oriental pharmacists Pharmacists Physical therapists Physicians Prosthetists and Orthotists Radiological technologists Rehabilitation counselor Sanitary technicians Speech-language therapists.
期刊最新文献
The irtQ R package: a user-friendly tool for item response theory-based test data analysis and calibration. Insights into undergraduate medical student selection tools: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Importance, performance frequency, and predicted future importance of dietitians’ jobs by practicing dietitians in Korea: a survey study Presidential address 2024: the expansion of computer-based testing to numerous health professions licensing examinations in Korea, preparation of computer-based practical tests, and adoption of the medical metaverse. Development and validity evidence for the resident-led large group teaching assessment instrument in the United States: a methodological study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1