Jessica Huwiler, Luca Oechslin, Patric Biaggi, Felix C Tanner, Christophe Alain Wyss
{"title":"对人工智能在解决心脏病学多选题考试中的表现进行实验评估。","authors":"Jessica Huwiler, Luca Oechslin, Patric Biaggi, Felix C Tanner, Christophe Alain Wyss","doi":"10.57187/s.3547","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance of various artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots (commercially available in Switzerland up to June 2023) in solving a theoretical cardiology board exam and to compare their accuracy with that of human cardiology fellows.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For the study, a set of 88 multiple-choice cardiology exam questions was used. The participating cardiology fellows and selected chatbots were presented with these questions. The evaluation metrics included Top-1 and Top-2 accuracy, assessing the ability of chatbots and fellows to select the correct answer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the cardiology fellows, all 36 participants successfully passed the exam with a median accuracy of 98% (IQR 91-99%, range from 78% to 100%). However, the performance of the chatbots varied. Only one chatbot, Jasper quality, achieved the minimum pass rate of 73% correct answers. Most chatbots demonstrated a median Top-1 accuracy of 47% (IQR 44-53%, range from 42% to 73%), while Top-2 accuracy provided a modest improvement, resulting in a median accuracy of 67% (IQR 65-72%, range from 61% to 82%). Even with this advantage, only two chatbots, Jasper quality and ChatGPT plus 4.0, would have passed the exam. Similar results were observed when picture-based questions were excluded from the dataset.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, the study suggests that most current language-based chatbots have limitations in accurately solving theoretical medical board exams. In general, currently widely available chatbots fell short of achieving a passing score in a theoretical cardiology board exam. Nevertheless, a few showed promising results. Further improvements in artificial intelligence language models may lead to better performance in medical knowledge applications in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":22111,"journal":{"name":"Swiss medical weekly","volume":"154 ","pages":"3547"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Experimental assessment of the performance of artificial intelligence in solving multiple-choice board exams in cardiology.\",\"authors\":\"Jessica Huwiler, Luca Oechslin, Patric Biaggi, Felix C Tanner, Christophe Alain Wyss\",\"doi\":\"10.57187/s.3547\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance of various artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots (commercially available in Switzerland up to June 2023) in solving a theoretical cardiology board exam and to compare their accuracy with that of human cardiology fellows.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For the study, a set of 88 multiple-choice cardiology exam questions was used. The participating cardiology fellows and selected chatbots were presented with these questions. The evaluation metrics included Top-1 and Top-2 accuracy, assessing the ability of chatbots and fellows to select the correct answer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the cardiology fellows, all 36 participants successfully passed the exam with a median accuracy of 98% (IQR 91-99%, range from 78% to 100%). However, the performance of the chatbots varied. Only one chatbot, Jasper quality, achieved the minimum pass rate of 73% correct answers. Most chatbots demonstrated a median Top-1 accuracy of 47% (IQR 44-53%, range from 42% to 73%), while Top-2 accuracy provided a modest improvement, resulting in a median accuracy of 67% (IQR 65-72%, range from 61% to 82%). Even with this advantage, only two chatbots, Jasper quality and ChatGPT plus 4.0, would have passed the exam. Similar results were observed when picture-based questions were excluded from the dataset.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, the study suggests that most current language-based chatbots have limitations in accurately solving theoretical medical board exams. In general, currently widely available chatbots fell short of achieving a passing score in a theoretical cardiology board exam. Nevertheless, a few showed promising results. Further improvements in artificial intelligence language models may lead to better performance in medical knowledge applications in the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22111,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Swiss medical weekly\",\"volume\":\"154 \",\"pages\":\"3547\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Swiss medical weekly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.57187/s.3547\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Swiss medical weekly","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57187/s.3547","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Experimental assessment of the performance of artificial intelligence in solving multiple-choice board exams in cardiology.
Aims: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance of various artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots (commercially available in Switzerland up to June 2023) in solving a theoretical cardiology board exam and to compare their accuracy with that of human cardiology fellows.
Methods: For the study, a set of 88 multiple-choice cardiology exam questions was used. The participating cardiology fellows and selected chatbots were presented with these questions. The evaluation metrics included Top-1 and Top-2 accuracy, assessing the ability of chatbots and fellows to select the correct answer.
Results: Among the cardiology fellows, all 36 participants successfully passed the exam with a median accuracy of 98% (IQR 91-99%, range from 78% to 100%). However, the performance of the chatbots varied. Only one chatbot, Jasper quality, achieved the minimum pass rate of 73% correct answers. Most chatbots demonstrated a median Top-1 accuracy of 47% (IQR 44-53%, range from 42% to 73%), while Top-2 accuracy provided a modest improvement, resulting in a median accuracy of 67% (IQR 65-72%, range from 61% to 82%). Even with this advantage, only two chatbots, Jasper quality and ChatGPT plus 4.0, would have passed the exam. Similar results were observed when picture-based questions were excluded from the dataset.
Conclusions: Overall, the study suggests that most current language-based chatbots have limitations in accurately solving theoretical medical board exams. In general, currently widely available chatbots fell short of achieving a passing score in a theoretical cardiology board exam. Nevertheless, a few showed promising results. Further improvements in artificial intelligence language models may lead to better performance in medical knowledge applications in the future.
期刊介绍:
The Swiss Medical Weekly accepts for consideration original and review articles from all fields of medicine. The quality of SMW publications is guaranteed by a consistent policy of rigorous single-blind peer review. All editorial decisions are made by research-active academics.