Large Language Models and the North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) Practice Questions

IF 3.8 4区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education Pub Date : 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1016/j.ajpe.2024.101294
Alexa Ehlert , Benjamin Ehlert , Binxin Cao , Kathryn Morbitzer
{"title":"Large Language Models and the North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) Practice Questions","authors":"Alexa Ehlert ,&nbsp;Benjamin Ehlert ,&nbsp;Binxin Cao ,&nbsp;Kathryn Morbitzer","doi":"10.1016/j.ajpe.2024.101294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study aims to test the accuracy of large language models (LLMs) in answering standardized pharmacy examination practice questions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The performance of 3 LLMs (generative pretrained transformer [GPT]−3.5, GPT-4, and Chatsonic) was evaluated on 2 independent North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination practice question sets sourced from McGraw Hill and RxPrep. These question sets were further classified into binary question categories of adverse drug reaction (ADR) questions, scenario questions, treatment questions, and select-all questions. Python was used to run χ<sup>2</sup> tests to compare model and question-type accuracy.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 3 LLMs tested, GPT-4 achieved the highest accuracy, with 87% accuracy on the McGraw Hill question set and 83.5% accuracy on the RxPrep question set. In comparison, GPT-3.5 had 68.0% and 60.0% accuracy on those question sets, respectively, and Chatsonic had 60.5% and 62.5% accuracy on those question sets, respectively. All models performed worse on select-all questions compared with non-select-all questions (GPT-3: 42.3% vs 66.2%; GPT-4: 73.1 vs 87.2%; Chatsonic: 36.5% vs 71.6%). GPT-4 had statistically higher accuracy in answering ADR questions (96.1%) compared with non-ADR questions (83.9%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Our study found that GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3.5 and Chatsonic in answering North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination pharmacy licensure examination practice questions, particularly excelling in answering questions related to ADRs. These results suggest that advanced LLMs such as GPT-4 could be used for applications in pharmacy education.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55530,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education","volume":"88 11","pages":"Article 101294"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002945924110133","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

This study aims to test the accuracy of large language models (LLMs) in answering standardized pharmacy examination practice questions.

Methods

The performance of 3 LLMs (generative pretrained transformer [GPT]−3.5, GPT-4, and Chatsonic) was evaluated on 2 independent North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination practice question sets sourced from McGraw Hill and RxPrep. These question sets were further classified into binary question categories of adverse drug reaction (ADR) questions, scenario questions, treatment questions, and select-all questions. Python was used to run χ2 tests to compare model and question-type accuracy.

Results

Of the 3 LLMs tested, GPT-4 achieved the highest accuracy, with 87% accuracy on the McGraw Hill question set and 83.5% accuracy on the RxPrep question set. In comparison, GPT-3.5 had 68.0% and 60.0% accuracy on those question sets, respectively, and Chatsonic had 60.5% and 62.5% accuracy on those question sets, respectively. All models performed worse on select-all questions compared with non-select-all questions (GPT-3: 42.3% vs 66.2%; GPT-4: 73.1 vs 87.2%; Chatsonic: 36.5% vs 71.6%). GPT-4 had statistically higher accuracy in answering ADR questions (96.1%) compared with non-ADR questions (83.9%).

Conclusion

Our study found that GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3.5 and Chatsonic in answering North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination pharmacy licensure examination practice questions, particularly excelling in answering questions related to ADRs. These results suggest that advanced LLMs such as GPT-4 could be used for applications in pharmacy education.
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
大型语言模型和 NAPLEX 练习题。
研究目的本研究旨在测试大型语言模型(LLM)在回答标准化药学考试练习题时的准确性:在 McGraw Hill 和 RxPrep 提供的两套独立的北美药剂师执业资格考试(NAPLEX)练习题中,对 GPT-3.5、GPT-4 和 Chatsonic 这三种大型语言模型的性能进行了评估。这些问题集被进一步分为药物不良反应 (ADR) 问题、情景问题、治疗问题和全选问题等二元问题类别。Python 被用来进行卡方检验,以比较模型和问题类型的准确性:在测试的三种 LLM 中,GPT-4 的准确率最高,在 McGraw Hill 问题集上的准确率为 87%,在 RxPrep 问题集上的准确率为 83.5%。相比之下,GPT-3.5 在这些问题集上的准确率分别为 68.0% 和 60.0%,Chatsonic 在这些问题集上的准确率分别为 60.5% 和 62.5%。与非全选问题相比,所有模型在全选问题上的表现都较差(GPT-3:42.3% vs. 66.2% | GPT-4:73.1 vs. 87.2% | Chatsonic:36.5% vs. 71.6%)。与非 ADR 问题(83.9%)相比,GPT-4 回答 ADR 问题(96.1%)的准确率更高:我们的研究发现,GPT-4 在回答 NAPLEX 执业药师资格考试练习题时的表现优于 GPT-3.5 和 Chatsonic,尤其是在回答与 ADR 相关的问题时。这些结果表明,像 GPT-4 这样的高级 LLM 可以应用于药学教育。
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
4.30
自引率
15.20%
发文量
114
期刊介绍: The Journal accepts unsolicited manuscripts that have not been published and are not under consideration for publication elsewhere. The Journal only considers material related to pharmaceutical education for publication. Authors must prepare manuscripts to conform to the Journal style (Author Instructions). All manuscripts are subject to peer review and approval by the editor prior to acceptance for publication. Reviewers are assigned by the editor with the advice of the editorial board as needed. Manuscripts are submitted and processed online (Submit a Manuscript) using Editorial Manager, an online manuscript tracking system that facilitates communication between the editorial office, editor, associate editors, reviewers, and authors. After a manuscript is accepted, it is scheduled for publication in an upcoming issue of the Journal. All manuscripts are formatted and copyedited, and returned to the author for review and approval of the changes. Approximately 2 weeks prior to publication, the author receives an electronic proof of the article for final review and approval. Authors are not assessed page charges for publication.
期刊最新文献
Assessment of Student-Reported Preparedness in Leadership and Professional Service Management Post Capstone Course. A Multisite, Longitudinal Study Assessing Prevalence of Anxiety in Student Pharmacists. Association Of Emotional Intelligence With Pharmacy Students' Leadership And Academic Performance. Developing Allies: Preparing Pharmacy Students to Practice with Cultural and Structural Humility. Proof of Concept of ChatGPT as a Virtual Tutor.
×
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