Performance of ChatGPT on Factual Knowledge Questions Regarding Clinical Pharmacy

Merel van Nuland PharmD, PhD, Abdullah Erdogan BSc, Cenkay Aςar PharmD, Ramon Contrucci PharmD, Sven Hilbrants PharmD, Lamyae Maanach PharmD, Toine Egberts PharmD, PhD, Paul D. van der Linden PharmD, PhD
{"title":"Performance of ChatGPT on Factual Knowledge Questions Regarding Clinical Pharmacy","authors":"Merel van Nuland PharmD, PhD,&nbsp;Abdullah Erdogan BSc,&nbsp;Cenkay Aςar PharmD,&nbsp;Ramon Contrucci PharmD,&nbsp;Sven Hilbrants PharmD,&nbsp;Lamyae Maanach PharmD,&nbsp;Toine Egberts PharmD, PhD,&nbsp;Paul D. van der Linden PharmD, PhD","doi":"10.1002/jcph.2443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>ChatGPT is a language model that was trained on a large dataset including medical literature. Several studies have described the performance of ChatGPT on medical exams. In this study, we examine its performance in answering factual knowledge questions regarding clinical pharmacy. Questions were obtained from a Dutch application that features multiple-choice questions to maintain a basic knowledge level for clinical pharmacists. In total, 264 clinical pharmacy-related questions were presented to ChatGPT and responses were evaluated for accuracy, concordance, quality of the substantiation, and reproducibility. Accuracy was defined as the correctness of the answer, and results were compared to the overall score by pharmacists over 2022. Responses were marked concordant if no contradictions were present. The quality of the substantiation was graded by two independent pharmacists using a 4-point scale. Reproducibility was established by presenting questions multiple times and on various days. ChatGPT yielded accurate responses for 79% of the questions, surpassing pharmacists' accuracy of 66%. Concordance was 95%, and the quality of the substantiation was deemed good or excellent for 73% of the questions. Reproducibility was consistently high, both within day and between days (&gt;92%), as well as across different users. ChatGPT demonstrated a higher accuracy and reproducibility to factual knowledge questions related to clinical pharmacy practice than pharmacists. Consequently, we posit that ChatGPT could serve as a valuable resource to pharmacists. We hope the technology will further improve, which may lead to enhanced future performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":22751,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology","volume":"64 9","pages":"1095-1100"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcph.2443","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

ChatGPT is a language model that was trained on a large dataset including medical literature. Several studies have described the performance of ChatGPT on medical exams. In this study, we examine its performance in answering factual knowledge questions regarding clinical pharmacy. Questions were obtained from a Dutch application that features multiple-choice questions to maintain a basic knowledge level for clinical pharmacists. In total, 264 clinical pharmacy-related questions were presented to ChatGPT and responses were evaluated for accuracy, concordance, quality of the substantiation, and reproducibility. Accuracy was defined as the correctness of the answer, and results were compared to the overall score by pharmacists over 2022. Responses were marked concordant if no contradictions were present. The quality of the substantiation was graded by two independent pharmacists using a 4-point scale. Reproducibility was established by presenting questions multiple times and on various days. ChatGPT yielded accurate responses for 79% of the questions, surpassing pharmacists' accuracy of 66%. Concordance was 95%, and the quality of the substantiation was deemed good or excellent for 73% of the questions. Reproducibility was consistently high, both within day and between days (>92%), as well as across different users. ChatGPT demonstrated a higher accuracy and reproducibility to factual knowledge questions related to clinical pharmacy practice than pharmacists. Consequently, we posit that ChatGPT could serve as a valuable resource to pharmacists. We hope the technology will further improve, which may lead to enhanced future performance.

ChatGPT 在有关临床药学的事实性知识问题上的表现
ChatGPT 是在包括医学文献在内的大型数据集上训练的语言模型。一些研究已经描述了 ChatGPT 在医学考试中的表现。在本研究中,我们检验了 ChatGPT 在回答有关临床药学的事实性知识问题时的表现。问题来自荷兰的一个应用程序,该应用程序以多项选择题为特色,以保持临床药剂师的基础知识水平。ChatGPT 共回答了 264 个临床药学相关问题,并对回答的准确性、一致性、证据质量和可重复性进行了评估。准确性被定义为答案的正确性,其结果与药剂师在 2022 年的总得分进行比较。如果答案没有矛盾,则标记为一致。证实的质量由两名独立药剂师使用 4 分制评分。通过在不同日期多次提出问题来确定可重复性。ChatGPT 对 79% 的问题做出了准确回答,超过了药剂师 66% 的准确率。一致性为 95%,73% 的问题的证实质量被视为良好或优秀。无论是在同一天内还是不同天之间(92%),以及不同用户之间的重复性都很高。与药剂师相比,ChatGPT 在临床药学实践相关的事实知识问题上表现出更高的准确性和再现性。因此,我们认为 ChatGPT 可以作为药剂师的宝贵资源。我们希望该技术能进一步改进,从而提高未来的性能。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信