GPT-4在眼科中的能力:模型熵分析和人类水平医学问答的进展。

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY British Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1136/bjo-2023-324438
Fares Antaki, Daniel Milad, Mark A Chia, Charles-Édouard Giguère, Samir Touma, Jonathan El-Khoury, Pearse A Keane, Renaud Duval
{"title":"GPT-4在眼科中的能力:模型熵分析和人类水平医学问答的进展。","authors":"Fares Antaki, Daniel Milad, Mark A Chia, Charles-Édouard Giguère, Samir Touma, Jonathan El-Khoury, Pearse A Keane, Renaud Duval","doi":"10.1136/bjo-2023-324438","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence on the performance of Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4), a large language model (LLM), in the ophthalmology question-answering domain is needed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We tested GPT-4 on two 260-question multiple choice question sets from the Basic and Clinical Science Course (BCSC) Self-Assessment Program and the OphthoQuestions question banks. We compared the accuracy of GPT-4 models with varying temperatures (creativity setting) and evaluated their responses in a subset of questions. We also compared the best-performing GPT-4 model to GPT-3.5 and to historical human performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GPT-4-0.3 (GPT-4 with a temperature of 0.3) achieved the highest accuracy among GPT-4 models, with 75.8% on the BCSC set and 70.0% on the OphthoQuestions set. The combined accuracy was 72.9%, which represents an 18.3% raw improvement in accuracy compared with GPT-3.5 (p<0.001). Human graders preferred responses from models with a temperature higher than 0 (more creative). Exam section, question difficulty and cognitive level were all predictive of GPT-4-0.3 answer accuracy. GPT-4-0.3's performance was numerically superior to human performance on the BCSC (75.8% vs 73.3%) and OphthoQuestions (70.0% vs 63.0%), but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.55 and p=0.09).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GPT-4, an LLM trained on non-ophthalmology-specific data, performs significantly better than its predecessor on simulated ophthalmology board-style exams. Remarkably, its performance tended to be superior to historical human performance, but that difference was not statistically significant in our study.</p>","PeriodicalId":9313,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Capabilities of GPT-4 in ophthalmology: an analysis of model entropy and progress towards human-level medical question answering.\",\"authors\":\"Fares Antaki, Daniel Milad, Mark A Chia, Charles-Édouard Giguère, Samir Touma, Jonathan El-Khoury, Pearse A Keane, Renaud Duval\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bjo-2023-324438\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence on the performance of Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4), a large language model (LLM), in the ophthalmology question-answering domain is needed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We tested GPT-4 on two 260-question multiple choice question sets from the Basic and Clinical Science Course (BCSC) Self-Assessment Program and the OphthoQuestions question banks. We compared the accuracy of GPT-4 models with varying temperatures (creativity setting) and evaluated their responses in a subset of questions. We also compared the best-performing GPT-4 model to GPT-3.5 and to historical human performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GPT-4-0.3 (GPT-4 with a temperature of 0.3) achieved the highest accuracy among GPT-4 models, with 75.8% on the BCSC set and 70.0% on the OphthoQuestions set. The combined accuracy was 72.9%, which represents an 18.3% raw improvement in accuracy compared with GPT-3.5 (p<0.001). Human graders preferred responses from models with a temperature higher than 0 (more creative). Exam section, question difficulty and cognitive level were all predictive of GPT-4-0.3 answer accuracy. GPT-4-0.3's performance was numerically superior to human performance on the BCSC (75.8% vs 73.3%) and OphthoQuestions (70.0% vs 63.0%), but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.55 and p=0.09).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GPT-4, an LLM trained on non-ophthalmology-specific data, performs significantly better than its predecessor on simulated ophthalmology board-style exams. Remarkably, its performance tended to be superior to historical human performance, but that difference was not statistically significant in our study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2023-324438\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2023-324438","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:需要有证据证明Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4(GPT-4)这一大型语言模型(LLM)在眼科问答领域的性能。方法:我们在基础和临床科学课程(BCSC)自我评估计划和OphtoQuestions题库中的两个260题的多选题集上测试GPT-4。我们比较了GPT-4模型在不同温度(创造力设置)下的准确性,并评估了它们在一组问题中的反应。我们还将性能最好的GPT-4模型与GPT-3.5和历史人类性能进行了比较。结果:GPT-4.0.3(温度为0.3的GPT-4)在GPT-4模型中获得了最高的准确率,BCSC集的准确率为75.8%,OphtoQuestions集的准确度为70.0%。综合准确率为72.9%,与GPT-3.5相比,其准确率提高了18.3%(结论:GPT-4是一种基于非眼科特定数据训练的LLM,在模拟眼科委员会式考试中的表现明显优于其前身。值得注意的是,其表现往往优于历史人类表现,但在我们的研究中,这一差异在统计学上并不显著。
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
Capabilities of GPT-4 in ophthalmology: an analysis of model entropy and progress towards human-level medical question answering.

Background: Evidence on the performance of Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4), a large language model (LLM), in the ophthalmology question-answering domain is needed.

Methods: We tested GPT-4 on two 260-question multiple choice question sets from the Basic and Clinical Science Course (BCSC) Self-Assessment Program and the OphthoQuestions question banks. We compared the accuracy of GPT-4 models with varying temperatures (creativity setting) and evaluated their responses in a subset of questions. We also compared the best-performing GPT-4 model to GPT-3.5 and to historical human performance.

Results: GPT-4-0.3 (GPT-4 with a temperature of 0.3) achieved the highest accuracy among GPT-4 models, with 75.8% on the BCSC set and 70.0% on the OphthoQuestions set. The combined accuracy was 72.9%, which represents an 18.3% raw improvement in accuracy compared with GPT-3.5 (p<0.001). Human graders preferred responses from models with a temperature higher than 0 (more creative). Exam section, question difficulty and cognitive level were all predictive of GPT-4-0.3 answer accuracy. GPT-4-0.3's performance was numerically superior to human performance on the BCSC (75.8% vs 73.3%) and OphthoQuestions (70.0% vs 63.0%), but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.55 and p=0.09).

Conclusion: GPT-4, an LLM trained on non-ophthalmology-specific data, performs significantly better than its predecessor on simulated ophthalmology board-style exams. Remarkably, its performance tended to be superior to historical human performance, but that difference was not statistically significant in our study.

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
10.30
自引率
2.40%
发文量
213
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO) is an international peer-reviewed journal for ophthalmologists and visual science specialists. BJO publishes clinical investigations, clinical observations, and clinically relevant laboratory investigations related to ophthalmology. It also provides major reviews and also publishes manuscripts covering regional issues in a global context.
期刊最新文献
Short-term intraocular pressure changes after intravitreal aflibercept 2 mg, aflibercept 8 mg and faricimab: a prospective, comparative study Colour vision deficiency is associated with increased prevalence of amblyopia, strabismus and ametropia: a large population study Nyctohemeral effects of topical beta-adrenoceptor blocking agents measured with an intraocular telemetry sensor Intracellular dark spots are associated with endothelial cell loss after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty At a glance
×
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