加拿大家庭医生学院认证考试中生成预训练转换器(GPT)的表现。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE Family Medicine and Community Health Pub Date : 2024-05-28 DOI:10.1136/fmch-2023-002626
Mehdi Mousavi, Shabnam Shafiee, Jason M Harley, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung, Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi
{"title":"加拿大家庭医生学院认证考试中生成预训练转换器(GPT)的表现。","authors":"Mehdi Mousavi, Shabnam Shafiee, Jason M Harley, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung, Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi","doi":"10.1136/fmch-2023-002626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The application of large language models such as generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) has been promising in medical education, and its performance has been tested for different medical exams. This study aims to assess the performance of GPTs in responding to a set of sample questions of short-answer management problems (SAMPs) from the certification exam of the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Between August 8th and 25th, 2023, we used GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in five rounds to answer a sample of 77 SAMPs questions from the CFPC website. Two independent certified family physician reviewers scored AI-generated responses twice: first, according to the CFPC answer key (ie, CFPC score), and second, based on their knowledge and other references (ie, Reviews' score). An ordinal logistic generalised estimating equations (GEE) model was applied to analyse repeated measures across the five rounds.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>According to the CFPC answer key, 607 (73.6%) lines of answers by GPT-3.5 and 691 (81%) by GPT-4 were deemed accurate. Reviewer's scoring suggested that about 84% of the lines of answers provided by GPT-3.5 and 93% of GPT-4 were correct. The GEE analysis confirmed that over five rounds, the likelihood of achieving a higher CFPC Score Percentage for GPT-4 was 2.31 times more than GPT-3.5 (OR: 2.31; 95% CI: 1.53 to 3.47; p<0.001). Similarly, the Reviewers' Score percentage for responses provided by GPT-4 over 5 rounds were 2.23 times more likely to exceed those of GPT-3.5 (OR: 2.23; 95% CI: 1.22 to 4.06; p=0.009). Running the GPTs after a one week interval, regeneration of the prompt or using or not using the prompt did not significantly change the CFPC score percentage.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In our study, we used GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to answer complex, open-ended sample questions of the CFPC exam and showed that more than 70% of the answers were accurate, and GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3.5 in responding to the questions. Large language models such as GPTs seem promising for assisting candidates of the CFPC exam by providing potential answers. However, their use for family medicine education and exam preparation needs further studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":44590,"journal":{"name":"Family Medicine and Community Health","volume":"12 Suppl 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11138270/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance of generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) in Certification Examination of the College of Family Physicians of Canada.\",\"authors\":\"Mehdi Mousavi, Shabnam Shafiee, Jason M Harley, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung, Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/fmch-2023-002626\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The application of large language models such as generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) has been promising in medical education, and its performance has been tested for different medical exams. This study aims to assess the performance of GPTs in responding to a set of sample questions of short-answer management problems (SAMPs) from the certification exam of the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Between August 8th and 25th, 2023, we used GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in five rounds to answer a sample of 77 SAMPs questions from the CFPC website. Two independent certified family physician reviewers scored AI-generated responses twice: first, according to the CFPC answer key (ie, CFPC score), and second, based on their knowledge and other references (ie, Reviews' score). An ordinal logistic generalised estimating equations (GEE) model was applied to analyse repeated measures across the five rounds.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>According to the CFPC answer key, 607 (73.6%) lines of answers by GPT-3.5 and 691 (81%) by GPT-4 were deemed accurate. Reviewer's scoring suggested that about 84% of the lines of answers provided by GPT-3.5 and 93% of GPT-4 were correct. The GEE analysis confirmed that over five rounds, the likelihood of achieving a higher CFPC Score Percentage for GPT-4 was 2.31 times more than GPT-3.5 (OR: 2.31; 95% CI: 1.53 to 3.47; p<0.001). Similarly, the Reviewers' Score percentage for responses provided by GPT-4 over 5 rounds were 2.23 times more likely to exceed those of GPT-3.5 (OR: 2.23; 95% CI: 1.22 to 4.06; p=0.009). Running the GPTs after a one week interval, regeneration of the prompt or using or not using the prompt did not significantly change the CFPC score percentage.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In our study, we used GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to answer complex, open-ended sample questions of the CFPC exam and showed that more than 70% of the answers were accurate, and GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3.5 in responding to the questions. Large language models such as GPTs seem promising for assisting candidates of the CFPC exam by providing potential answers. However, their use for family medicine education and exam preparation needs further studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44590,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Family Medicine and Community Health\",\"volume\":\"12 Suppl 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11138270/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Family Medicine and Community Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2023-002626\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Medicine and Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2023-002626","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

前言生成式预训练转换器(GPT)等大型语言模型在医学教育中的应用前景广阔,其性能已在不同的医学考试中进行了测试。本研究旨在评估 GPT 在回答加拿大全科医学院(CFPC)认证考试中的一组简答管理问题(SAMPs)样题时的性能:方法:2023 年 8 月 8 日至 25 日期间,我们使用 GPT-3.5 和 GPT-4 分五轮回答了来自 CFPC 网站的 77 道 SAMPs 样题。两名独立的认证家庭医生审阅员对人工智能生成的答案进行了两次评分:第一次是根据 CFPC 答案要点(即 CFPC 评分),第二次是根据他们的知识和其他参考资料(即审阅员评分)。我们采用了一个序数逻辑广义估计方程(GEE)模型来分析五轮中的重复测量结果:根据 CFPC 答题卡,GPT-3.5 的 607 行(73.6%)和 GPT-4 的 691 行(81%)答案被认为是准确的。评审员的评分表明,GPT-3.5 和 GPT-4 中分别有 84% 和 93% 的答案是正确的。GEE 分析证实,在五轮测试中,GPT-4 获得较高 CFPC 分数百分比的可能性是 GPT-3.5 的 2.31 倍(OR:2.31;95% CI:1.53 至 3.47;p 结论:在我们的研究中,我们使用 GPT-3.5 和 GPT-4 回答了 CFPC 考试中复杂的开放式样题,结果表明 70% 以上的答案是准确的,GPT-4 在回答问题方面的表现优于 GPT-3.5。像 GPT 这样的大型语言模型似乎很有希望通过提供潜在答案来帮助 CFPC 考试的考生。然而,将其用于全科医学教育和备考还需要进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Performance of generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) in Certification Examination of the College of Family Physicians of Canada.

Introduction: The application of large language models such as generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) has been promising in medical education, and its performance has been tested for different medical exams. This study aims to assess the performance of GPTs in responding to a set of sample questions of short-answer management problems (SAMPs) from the certification exam of the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC).

Method: Between August 8th and 25th, 2023, we used GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in five rounds to answer a sample of 77 SAMPs questions from the CFPC website. Two independent certified family physician reviewers scored AI-generated responses twice: first, according to the CFPC answer key (ie, CFPC score), and second, based on their knowledge and other references (ie, Reviews' score). An ordinal logistic generalised estimating equations (GEE) model was applied to analyse repeated measures across the five rounds.

Result: According to the CFPC answer key, 607 (73.6%) lines of answers by GPT-3.5 and 691 (81%) by GPT-4 were deemed accurate. Reviewer's scoring suggested that about 84% of the lines of answers provided by GPT-3.5 and 93% of GPT-4 were correct. The GEE analysis confirmed that over five rounds, the likelihood of achieving a higher CFPC Score Percentage for GPT-4 was 2.31 times more than GPT-3.5 (OR: 2.31; 95% CI: 1.53 to 3.47; p<0.001). Similarly, the Reviewers' Score percentage for responses provided by GPT-4 over 5 rounds were 2.23 times more likely to exceed those of GPT-3.5 (OR: 2.23; 95% CI: 1.22 to 4.06; p=0.009). Running the GPTs after a one week interval, regeneration of the prompt or using or not using the prompt did not significantly change the CFPC score percentage.

Conclusion: In our study, we used GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to answer complex, open-ended sample questions of the CFPC exam and showed that more than 70% of the answers were accurate, and GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3.5 in responding to the questions. Large language models such as GPTs seem promising for assisting candidates of the CFPC exam by providing potential answers. However, their use for family medicine education and exam preparation needs further studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Medicine and Community Health (FMCH) is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal focusing on the topics of family medicine, general practice and community health. FMCH strives to be a leading international journal that promotes ‘Health Care for All’ through disseminating novel knowledge and best practices in primary care, family medicine, and community health. FMCH publishes original research, review, methodology, commentary, reflection, and case-study from the lens of population health. FMCH’s Asian Focus section features reports of family medicine development in the Asia-pacific region. FMCH aims to be an exemplary forum for the timely communication of medical knowledge and skills with the goal of promoting improved health care through the practice of family and community-based medicine globally. FMCH aims to serve a diverse audience including researchers, educators, policymakers and leaders of family medicine and community health. We also aim to provide content relevant for researchers working on population health, epidemiology, public policy, disease control and management, preventative medicine and disease burden. FMCH does not impose any article processing charges (APC) or submission charges.
期刊最新文献
The role of the primary healthcare research community in addressing the social and structural determinants of health: a call to action from NAPCRG 2023. Identification of research gaps to improve care for healthy ageing: a scoping review. Temporal trends and practice variation of paediatric diagnostic tests in primary care: retrospective analysis of 14 million tests. General practice trainee, supervisor and educator perspectives on the transitions in postgraduate training: a scoping review. Reducing strain on primary healthcare systems through innovative models of care: the impact of direct access physiotherapy for musculoskeletal conditions-an interrupted time series analysis.
×
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