While GPT-3.5 is unable to pass the Physician Licensing Exam in Taiwan, GPT-4 successfully meets the criteria.

Tsung-An Chen, Kuan-Chen Lin, Ming-Hwai Lin, Hsiao-Ting Chang, Yu-Chun Chen, Tzeng-Ji Chen
{"title":"While GPT-3.5 is unable to pass the Physician Licensing Exam in Taiwan, GPT-4 successfully meets the criteria.","authors":"Tsung-An Chen, Kuan-Chen Lin, Ming-Hwai Lin, Hsiao-Ting Chang, Yu-Chun Chen, Tzeng-Ji Chen","doi":"10.1097/JCMA.0000000000001225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study investigates the performance of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 in answering medical questions from Taiwan's Physician Licensing Exam, ranging from basic medical knowledge to specialized clinical topics. It aims to understand these artificial intelligence (AI) models' capabilities in a non-English context, specifically traditional Chinese.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study incorporated questions from the Taiwan Physician Licensing Exam in 2022, excluding image-based queries. Each question was manually input into ChatGPT, and responses were compared with official answers from Taiwan's Ministry of Examination. Differences across specialties and question types were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher's exact tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT-3.5 achieved an average accuracy of 67.7% in basic medical sciences and 53.2% in clinical medicine. Meanwhile, ChatGPT-4 significantly outperformed ChatGPT-3.5, with average accuracies of 91.9% and 90.7%, respectively. ChatGPT-3.5 scored above 60.0% in 7 out of 10 basic medical science subjects and 3 out of 14 clinical subjects, while ChatGPT-4 scored above 60.0% in every subject. The type of question did not significantly affect accuracy rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ChatGPT-3.5 showed proficiency in basic medical sciences but was less reliable in clinical medicine, whereas ChatGPT-4 demonstrated strong capabilities in both areas. However, their proficiency varied across different specialties. The type of question had minimal impact on performance. This study highlights the potential of AI models in medical education and non-English languages examination and the need for cautious and informed implementation in educational settings due to variability across specialties.</p>","PeriodicalId":94115,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JCMA.0000000000001225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study investigates the performance of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 in answering medical questions from Taiwan's Physician Licensing Exam, ranging from basic medical knowledge to specialized clinical topics. It aims to understand these artificial intelligence (AI) models' capabilities in a non-English context, specifically traditional Chinese.

Methods: The study incorporated questions from the Taiwan Physician Licensing Exam in 2022, excluding image-based queries. Each question was manually input into ChatGPT, and responses were compared with official answers from Taiwan's Ministry of Examination. Differences across specialties and question types were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher's exact tests.

Results: ChatGPT-3.5 achieved an average accuracy of 67.7% in basic medical sciences and 53.2% in clinical medicine. Meanwhile, ChatGPT-4 significantly outperformed ChatGPT-3.5, with average accuracies of 91.9% and 90.7%, respectively. ChatGPT-3.5 scored above 60.0% in 7 out of 10 basic medical science subjects and 3 out of 14 clinical subjects, while ChatGPT-4 scored above 60.0% in every subject. The type of question did not significantly affect accuracy rates.

Conclusion: ChatGPT-3.5 showed proficiency in basic medical sciences but was less reliable in clinical medicine, whereas ChatGPT-4 demonstrated strong capabilities in both areas. However, their proficiency varied across different specialties. The type of question had minimal impact on performance. This study highlights the potential of AI models in medical education and non-English languages examination and the need for cautious and informed implementation in educational settings due to variability across specialties.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
While GPT-3.5 is unable to pass the Physician Licensing Exam in Taiwan, GPT-4 successfully meets the criteria. Canal wall and ossicle chain reconstruction with tragal cartilage/perichondrium composite grafts in endoscopic resection of middle ear and antrum cholesteatomas. Differential involvement of trait impulsivity, fluid intelligence, and executive function in creativity among euthymic patients with bipolar disorder. Harness the power of artificial intelligence to generate graphical abstracts. Comparison of clinical outcomes in women with surgically treated early primary cervical cancer: Lymphadenectomy vs sentinel lymph node biopsy.
×
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