A comparative analysis of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 on a multiple-choice ophthalmology question bank: A study on artificial intelligence developments.

Suleyman Demir
{"title":"A comparative analysis of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 on a multiple-choice ophthalmology question bank: A study on artificial intelligence developments.","authors":"Suleyman Demir","doi":"10.22336/rjo.2024.67","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To evaluate the performance of ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-3.5 in answering multiple-choice questions in OphthoQuestions (www.ophthoquestions.com), a popular question preparation bank, and to compare the performance of GPT-4.0 and GPT-3.5.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In January 2024, using a personal account on OphthoQuestions (www.ophthoquestions.com), 520 questions were selected from 4,551 OphthoQuestions. These 520 questions were created by randomly selecting 40 questions from each of 13 ophthalmology subspecialties. GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 were asked to answer these same 520 questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-3.5 answered 408 questions (78.46%) 95% CI [70,88%] and 333 questions (64.15%) 95% CI [53,74%] of 520 questions correctly, respectively. GPT-4.0 answered significantly more questions correctly than GPT-3.5 (p= 0.0195). ChatGPT-4.0 showed a statistically significant difference compared to ChatGPT-3.5 in giving correct answers in all subgroup analyses (p<0.05).</p><p><strong>Discussions: </strong>This study gives an encouraging new proof of ChatGPT's ability to manage complex clinical and medical data, focusing on the development and consistency of artificial intelligence algorithms. The statistically significant success of GPT-4.0 over GPT-3.5 in this study should be examined in light of future algorithm advances, particularly in online tests, which will increase progressively as the use of artificial intelligence poses an increasing danger to test integrity. Protocols such as required proctoring should be considered. In the following years, ChatGPT's clinical management and decision-making expertise should be supplemented by more research indicating that it may be a beneficial resource for ophthalmologists and other medical professionals seeking information and guidance on challenging cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GPT-4.0 was found to give more and more consistent answers than GPT 3.5 on a multiple-choice ophthalmology question bank. ChatGPT has shown significant differences between algorithms in accuracy and repeatability when handling questions related to eye diseases. This study shows that new artificial intelligence algorithms are promising. More data is needed to use artificial intelligence language models in medical applications.</p>","PeriodicalId":94355,"journal":{"name":"Romanian journal of ophthalmology","volume":"68 4","pages":"367-371"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11809821/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Romanian journal of ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22336/rjo.2024.67","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

Introduction: To evaluate the performance of ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-3.5 in answering multiple-choice questions in OphthoQuestions (www.ophthoquestions.com), a popular question preparation bank, and to compare the performance of GPT-4.0 and GPT-3.5.

Methods: In January 2024, using a personal account on OphthoQuestions (www.ophthoquestions.com), 520 questions were selected from 4,551 OphthoQuestions. These 520 questions were created by randomly selecting 40 questions from each of 13 ophthalmology subspecialties. GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 were asked to answer these same 520 questions.

Results: ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-3.5 answered 408 questions (78.46%) 95% CI [70,88%] and 333 questions (64.15%) 95% CI [53,74%] of 520 questions correctly, respectively. GPT-4.0 answered significantly more questions correctly than GPT-3.5 (p= 0.0195). ChatGPT-4.0 showed a statistically significant difference compared to ChatGPT-3.5 in giving correct answers in all subgroup analyses (p<0.05).

Discussions: This study gives an encouraging new proof of ChatGPT's ability to manage complex clinical and medical data, focusing on the development and consistency of artificial intelligence algorithms. The statistically significant success of GPT-4.0 over GPT-3.5 in this study should be examined in light of future algorithm advances, particularly in online tests, which will increase progressively as the use of artificial intelligence poses an increasing danger to test integrity. Protocols such as required proctoring should be considered. In the following years, ChatGPT's clinical management and decision-making expertise should be supplemented by more research indicating that it may be a beneficial resource for ophthalmologists and other medical professionals seeking information and guidance on challenging cases.

Conclusions: GPT-4.0 was found to give more and more consistent answers than GPT 3.5 on a multiple-choice ophthalmology question bank. ChatGPT has shown significant differences between algorithms in accuracy and repeatability when handling questions related to eye diseases. This study shows that new artificial intelligence algorithms are promising. More data is needed to use artificial intelligence language models in medical applications.

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