Critical Analysis of ChatGPT 4 Omni in USMLE Disciplines, Clinical Clerkships, and Clinical Skills.

IF 3.2 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Brenton T Bicknell, Danner Butler, Sydney Whalen, James Ricks, Cory J Dixon, Abigail B Clark, Olivia Spaedy, Adam Skelton, Neel Edupuganti, Lance Dzubinski, Hudson Tate, Garrett Dyess, Brenessa Lindeman, Lisa Soleymani Lehmann
{"title":"Critical Analysis of ChatGPT 4 Omni in USMLE Disciplines, Clinical Clerkships, and Clinical Skills.","authors":"Brenton T Bicknell, Danner Butler, Sydney Whalen, James Ricks, Cory J Dixon, Abigail B Clark, Olivia Spaedy, Adam Skelton, Neel Edupuganti, Lance Dzubinski, Hudson Tate, Garrett Dyess, Brenessa Lindeman, Lisa Soleymani Lehmann","doi":"10.2196/63430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent studies, including those by the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), have highlighted the remarkable capabilities of recent large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT in passing the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE). However, there is a gap in detailed analysis of these models' performance in specific medical content areas, thus limiting an assessment of their potential utility for medical education.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess and compare the accuracy of successive ChatGPT versions (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4 Omni) in USMLE disciplines, clinical clerkships, and the clinical skills of diagnostics and management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used 750 clinical vignette-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs) to characterize the performance of successive ChatGPT versions [ChatGPT 3.5 (GPT-3.5), ChatGPT 4 (GPT-4), and ChatGPT 4 Omni (GPT-4o)] across USMLE disciplines, clinical clerkships, and in clinical skills (diagnostics and management). Accuracy was assessed using a standardized protocol, with statistical analyses conducted to compare the models' performances.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GPT-4o achieved the highest accuracy across 750 MCQs at 90.4%, outperforming GPT-4 and GPT-3.5, which scored 81.1% and 60.0% respectively. GPT-4o's highest performances were in social sciences (95.5%), behavioral and neuroscience (94.2%), and pharmacology (93.2%). In clinical skills, GPT-4o's diagnostic accuracy was 92.7% and management accuracy 88.8%, significantly higher than its predecessors. Notably, both GPT-4o and GPT-4 significantly outperformed the medical student average accuracy of 59.3% (95% CI: 58.3-60.3).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ChatGPT 4 Omni's performance in USMLE preclinical content areas as well as clinical skills indicates substantial improvements over its predecessors, suggesting significant potential for the use of this technology as an educational aid for medical students. These findings underscore the necessity of careful consideration of LLMs' integration into medical education, emphasizing the importance of structured curricula to guide their appropriate use and the need for ongoing critical analyses to ensure their reliability and effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrial: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":36236,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/63430","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Recent studies, including those by the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), have highlighted the remarkable capabilities of recent large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT in passing the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE). However, there is a gap in detailed analysis of these models' performance in specific medical content areas, thus limiting an assessment of their potential utility for medical education.

Objective: To assess and compare the accuracy of successive ChatGPT versions (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4 Omni) in USMLE disciplines, clinical clerkships, and the clinical skills of diagnostics and management.

Methods: This study used 750 clinical vignette-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs) to characterize the performance of successive ChatGPT versions [ChatGPT 3.5 (GPT-3.5), ChatGPT 4 (GPT-4), and ChatGPT 4 Omni (GPT-4o)] across USMLE disciplines, clinical clerkships, and in clinical skills (diagnostics and management). Accuracy was assessed using a standardized protocol, with statistical analyses conducted to compare the models' performances.

Results: GPT-4o achieved the highest accuracy across 750 MCQs at 90.4%, outperforming GPT-4 and GPT-3.5, which scored 81.1% and 60.0% respectively. GPT-4o's highest performances were in social sciences (95.5%), behavioral and neuroscience (94.2%), and pharmacology (93.2%). In clinical skills, GPT-4o's diagnostic accuracy was 92.7% and management accuracy 88.8%, significantly higher than its predecessors. Notably, both GPT-4o and GPT-4 significantly outperformed the medical student average accuracy of 59.3% (95% CI: 58.3-60.3).

Conclusions: ChatGPT 4 Omni's performance in USMLE preclinical content areas as well as clinical skills indicates substantial improvements over its predecessors, suggesting significant potential for the use of this technology as an educational aid for medical students. These findings underscore the necessity of careful consideration of LLMs' integration into medical education, emphasizing the importance of structured curricula to guide their appropriate use and the need for ongoing critical analyses to ensure their reliability and effectiveness.

Clinicaltrial:

ChatGPT 4 Omni 在 USMLE 学科、临床实习和临床技能中的批判性分析。
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
JMIR Medical Education
JMIR Medical Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
54
审稿时长
8 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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