Alexa Ehlert , Benjamin Ehlert , Binxin Cao , Kathryn Morbitzer
{"title":"大型语言模型和 NAPLEX 练习题。","authors":"Alexa Ehlert , Benjamin Ehlert , Binxin Cao , 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":"{\"title\":\"Large Language Models and the North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) Practice Questions\",\"authors\":\"Alexa Ehlert , Benjamin Ehlert , Binxin Cao , 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}","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}
Large Language Models and the North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) Practice Questions
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.
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.