Evaluating AI Models: Performance Validation Using Formal Multiple-Choice Questions in Neuropsychology.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Alejandro García-Rudolph, David Sanchez-Pinsach, Eloy Opisso
{"title":"Evaluating AI Models: Performance Validation Using Formal Multiple-Choice Questions in Neuropsychology.","authors":"Alejandro García-Rudolph, David Sanchez-Pinsach, Eloy Opisso","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acae068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>High-quality and accessible education is crucial for advancing neuropsychology. A recent study identified key barriers to board certification in clinical neuropsychology, such as time constraints and insufficient specialized knowledge. To address these challenges, this study explored the capabilities of advanced Artificial Intelligence (AI) language models, GPT-3.5 (free-version) and GPT-4.0 (under-subscription version), by evaluating their performance on 300 American Board of Professional Psychology in Clinical Neuropsychology-like questions. The results indicate that GPT-4.0 achieved a higher accuracy rate of 80.0% compared to GPT-3.5's 65.7%. In the \"Assessment\" category, GPT-4.0 demonstrated a notable improvement with an accuracy rate of 73.4% compared to GPT-3.5's 58.6% (p = 0.012). The \"Assessment\" category, which comprised 128 questions and exhibited the highest error rate by both AI models, was analyzed. A thematic analysis of the 26 incorrectly answered questions revealed 8 main themes and 17 specific codes, highlighting significant gaps in areas such as \"Neurodegenerative Diseases\" and \"Neuropsychological Testing and Interpretation.\"</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acae068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

High-quality and accessible education is crucial for advancing neuropsychology. A recent study identified key barriers to board certification in clinical neuropsychology, such as time constraints and insufficient specialized knowledge. To address these challenges, this study explored the capabilities of advanced Artificial Intelligence (AI) language models, GPT-3.5 (free-version) and GPT-4.0 (under-subscription version), by evaluating their performance on 300 American Board of Professional Psychology in Clinical Neuropsychology-like questions. The results indicate that GPT-4.0 achieved a higher accuracy rate of 80.0% compared to GPT-3.5's 65.7%. In the "Assessment" category, GPT-4.0 demonstrated a notable improvement with an accuracy rate of 73.4% compared to GPT-3.5's 58.6% (p = 0.012). The "Assessment" category, which comprised 128 questions and exhibited the highest error rate by both AI models, was analyzed. A thematic analysis of the 26 incorrectly answered questions revealed 8 main themes and 17 specific codes, highlighting significant gaps in areas such as "Neurodegenerative Diseases" and "Neuropsychological Testing and Interpretation."

评估人工智能模型:使用神经心理学中的正式多项选择题进行性能验证。
高质量且易于获得的教育对于推动神经心理学的发展至关重要。最近的一项研究确定了临床神经心理学委员会认证的主要障碍,如时间限制和专业知识不足。为了应对这些挑战,本研究探索了高级人工智能(AI)语言模型 GPT-3.5(免费版)和 GPT-4.0(订阅版)的能力,评估了它们在 300 个美国临床神经心理学专业心理学委员会类似问题上的表现。结果表明,GPT-4.0 的准确率为 80.0%,高于 GPT-3.5 的 65.7%。在 "评估 "类别中,GPT-4.0 的准确率为 73.4%,比 GPT-3.5 的 58.6% 有了显著提高(p = 0.012)。我们对 "评估 "类别进行了分析,该类别共有 128 个问题,两个人工智能模型的错误率都是最高的。对 26 道错误回答的问题进行的主题分析显示了 8 个主要主题和 17 个特定代码,突出显示了在 "神经退行性疾病 "和 "神经心理测试和解释 "等领域的重大差距。
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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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