[ChatGPT and the German board examination for ophthalmology: an evaluation].

Die Ophthalmologie Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-27 DOI:10.1007/s00347-024-02046-0
Rémi Yaïci, M Cieplucha, R Bock, F Moayed, N E Bechrakis, P Berens, N Feltgen, D Friedburg, M Gräf, R Guthoff, E M Hoffmann, H Hoerauf, C Hintschich, T Kohnen, E M Messmer, M M Nentwich, U Pleyer, U Schaudig, B Seitz, G Geerling, M Roth
{"title":"[ChatGPT and the German board examination for ophthalmology: an evaluation].","authors":"Rémi Yaïci, M Cieplucha, R Bock, F Moayed, N E Bechrakis, P Berens, N Feltgen, D Friedburg, M Gräf, R Guthoff, E M Hoffmann, H Hoerauf, C Hintschich, T Kohnen, E M Messmer, M M Nentwich, U Pleyer, U Schaudig, B Seitz, G Geerling, M Roth","doi":"10.1007/s00347-024-02046-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>In recent years artificial intelligence (AI), as a new segment of computer science, has also become increasingly more important in medicine. The aim of this project was to investigate whether the current version of ChatGPT (ChatGPT 4.0) is able to answer open questions that could be asked in the context of a German board examination in ophthalmology.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After excluding image-based questions, 10 questions from 15 different chapters/topics were selected from the textbook 1000 questions in ophthalmology (1000 Fragen Augenheilkunde 2nd edition, 2014). ChatGPT was instructed by means of a so-called prompt to assume the role of a board certified ophthalmologist and to concentrate on the essentials when answering. A human expert with considerable expertise in the respective topic, evaluated the answers regarding their correctness, relevance and internal coherence. Additionally, the overall performance was rated by school grades and assessed whether the answers would have been sufficient to pass the ophthalmology board examination.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ChatGPT would have passed the board examination in 12 out of 15 topics. The overall performance, however, was limited with only 53.3% completely correct answers. While the correctness of the results in the different topics was highly variable (uveitis and lens/cataract 100%; optics and refraction 20%), the answers always had a high thematic fit (70%) and internal coherence (71%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The fact that ChatGPT 4.0 would have passed the specialist examination in 12 out of 15 topics is remarkable considering the fact that this AI was not specifically trained for medical questions; however, there is a considerable performance variability between the topics, with some serious shortcomings that currently rule out its safe use in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":72808,"journal":{"name":"Die Ophthalmologie","volume":" ","pages":"554-564"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Die Ophthalmologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-024-02046-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: In recent years artificial intelligence (AI), as a new segment of computer science, has also become increasingly more important in medicine. The aim of this project was to investigate whether the current version of ChatGPT (ChatGPT 4.0) is able to answer open questions that could be asked in the context of a German board examination in ophthalmology.

Methods: After excluding image-based questions, 10 questions from 15 different chapters/topics were selected from the textbook 1000 questions in ophthalmology (1000 Fragen Augenheilkunde 2nd edition, 2014). ChatGPT was instructed by means of a so-called prompt to assume the role of a board certified ophthalmologist and to concentrate on the essentials when answering. A human expert with considerable expertise in the respective topic, evaluated the answers regarding their correctness, relevance and internal coherence. Additionally, the overall performance was rated by school grades and assessed whether the answers would have been sufficient to pass the ophthalmology board examination.

Results: The ChatGPT would have passed the board examination in 12 out of 15 topics. The overall performance, however, was limited with only 53.3% completely correct answers. While the correctness of the results in the different topics was highly variable (uveitis and lens/cataract 100%; optics and refraction 20%), the answers always had a high thematic fit (70%) and internal coherence (71%).

Conclusion: The fact that ChatGPT 4.0 would have passed the specialist examination in 12 out of 15 topics is remarkable considering the fact that this AI was not specifically trained for medical questions; however, there is a considerable performance variability between the topics, with some serious shortcomings that currently rule out its safe use in clinical practice.

[ChatGPT 和德国眼科医师资格考试:一项评估]。
目的:近年来,人工智能(AI)作为计算机科学的一个新领域,在医学领域也变得越来越重要。本项目旨在研究当前版本的 ChatGPT(ChatGPT 4.0)是否能够回答德国眼科医师资格考试中的开放性问题:在排除图像类问题后,从《眼科 1000 题》(1000 Fragen Augenheilkunde 第 2 版,2014 年)教科书的 15 个不同章节/主题中选取了 10 个问题。通过所谓的提示,ChatGPT 被要求扮演经认证的眼科医生的角色,并在回答时专注于要点。一位在相关主题方面拥有丰富专业知识的人类专家会对答案的正确性、相关性和内在连贯性进行评估。此外,还根据学校成绩对整体表现进行评分,并评估答案是否足以通过眼科医师考试:在 15 个题目中,有 12 个题目的 ChatGPT 可以通过董事会考试。然而,总体成绩有限,只有 53.3% 的答案完全正确。虽然不同题目的正确率差异很大(葡萄膜炎和晶状体/白内障 100%;光学和屈光 20%),但答案的主题契合度(70%)和内部连贯性(71%)始终很高:ChatGPT 4.0 可以通过 15 个题目中 12 个题目的专家考试,考虑到该人工智能并非专门针对医学问题进行训练,这一事实是非常了不起的;但是,不同题目之间的表现差异很大,存在一些严重缺陷,目前无法在临床实践中安全使用。
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