The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Does ChatGPT Perform on the Medical Licensing Exams? The Implications of Large Language Models for Medical Education and Knowledge Assessment
Open accessAbstract
Background: ChatGPT is a 175 billion parameter natural language processing model which can generate conversation style responses to user input. Objective: To evaluate the performance of ChatGPT on questions within the scope of United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 exams, as well as analyze responses for user interpretability. Methods: We used two novel sets of multiple choice questions to evaluate ChatGPT’s performance, each with questions pertaining to Step 1 and Step 2. The first was derived from AMBOSS, a commonly used question bank for medical students, which also provides statistics on question difficulty and the performance on an exam relative to the userbase. The second, was the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Free 120-question exams. After prompting ChatGPT with each question, ChatGPT’s selected answer was recorded, and the text output evaluated across three qualitative metrics: logical justification of the answer selected, presence of information internal to the question, and presence of information external to the question. Results: On the four datasets, AMBOSS-Step1, AMBOSS-Step2, NBME-Free-Step1, and NBMEFree-Step2, ChatGPT achieved accuracies of 44%, 42%, 64.4%, and 57.8%. The model demonstrated a significant decrease in performance as question difficulty increased (P=.012) within the AMBOSSStep1 dataset. We found logical justification for ChatGPT’s answer selection was present in 100% of outputs. Internal information to the question was present in > 90% of all questions. The presence of information external to the question was respectively 54.5% and 27% lower for incorrect relative to correct answers on the NBME-Free-Step1 and NBME-Free-Step2 datasets (P<=.001). Conclusion: ChatGPT marks a significant improvement in natural language processing models on the tasks of medical question answering. By performing at greater than 60% threshold on the NBME-FreeStep-1 dataset we show that the model is comparable to a third year medical student. Additionally, due to the dialogic nature of the response to questions, we demonstrate ChatGPT’s ability to provide reasoning and informational context across the majority of answers. These facts taken together make a compelling case for the potential applications of ChatGPT as a medical education tool.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“While these studies demonstrated mixed results with regards to ChatGPT’s performance in standardized exams against that of students, studies which specifically compared the model’s performance against that of previous large language models all indicated a significant improvement in the task of question answering20,21,23.”
From Perception, performance, and detectability of conversational artificial intelligence across 32 university courses (2023) · cites this paper as [20]
In the citing paper
“Despite these examples, the literature still lacks a systematic study comparing the performance of ChatGPT against that of students across various disciplines at the same institution.”
From Perception, performance, and detectability of conversational artificial intelligence across 32 university courses (2023) · cites this paper as [20]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Notes on the Sociology of Medical Discourse: The Language of Case Presentation
Anspach, R. R. (1988) · Journal of Health and Social Behavior · doi:10.2307/2136869 · Cited by 312
Das, A., Selek, S., Warner, A. R., Zuo, X., Hu, Y., Kuttichi Keloth, V., Li, J., Zheng, W. J., & Xu, H. (2022) · Proceedings of the 21st Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.bionlp-1.27 · Cited by 47
Automatic Question Answering for Medical MCQs: Can It Go Further than Information Retrieval?
Ha, L. A., & Yaneva, V. (2019) · International conference Recent advances in natural language processing · doi:10.26615/978-954-452-056-4_049 · Cited by 20
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- 2020, Question-driven summarization of answers to consumer health questions Scientific Data, 7, 1
- 2021, Q-Pain: A Question Answering Dataset to Measure Social Bias in Pain Management arXiv preprint
- 2022, Thinking about GPT-3 In-Context Learning for Biomedical IE?, Think Again arXiv preprint
- Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/ 2022.
- PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ 2022.
- 2019, PubMedQA: A dataset for biomedical research question answering arXiv preprint
- 2021, What Disease Does This Patient Have? A Large-Scale Open Domain Question Answering Dataset from Medical Exams Applied Sciences, 11, 6421
- 1999, Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, A Meta-Analysis Review of Educational Research, 69, 21
- 2007, PBL in the undergraduate MD program at McMaster University: three iterations in three decades Academic Medicine, 82, 370
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ChatGPT for Education and Research: Opportunities, Threats, and Strategies
Rahman, M. M., & Watanobe, Y. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app13095783 · Cited by 1,080
“[27] investigated the performance of ChatGPT on the medical licensing exam.”
BackgroundChatGPT: Jack of all trades, master of none
Kocoń, J., Cichecki, I., Kaszyca, O., Kochanek, M., Szydło, D., Baran, J., Bielaniewicz, J., Gruza, M., Janz, A., Kanclerz, K., et al. (2023) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101861 · Cited by 758
Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: an exploratory investigation
Yan, D. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4 · Cited by 713
Yeo, Y. H., Samaan, J. S., Ng, W. H., Ting, P., Trivedi, H. D., Vipani, A., Ayoub, W. S., Yang, J. D., Liran, O., Spiegel, B. M. R., et al. (2023) · Clinical and Molecular Hepatology · doi:10.3350/cmh.2023.0089 · Cited by 669
Accuracy and Reliability of Chatbot Responses to Physician Questions
Goodman, R. S., Patrinely, J. R., Stone, C. A., Zimmerman, E., Donald, R. R., Chang, S. S., Berkowitz, S. T., Finn, A. P., Jahangir, E., Scoville, E. A., et al. (2023) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.36483 · Cited by 484
Metadata
- Authors
- Gilson, A., Safranek, C., Huang, T., Socrates, V., Chi, L., Taylor, R. A., & Chartash, D.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- University College Dublin (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Chartash, David
- ORCID
- Venue
- medRxiv
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2022-12-26
- OpenAlex
- W4313232683
- Cited by
- 172
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 82
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Yale University
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (T35DK104689)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, USMLE Step 1, USMLE Step 2, medical licensing examinations, multiple-choice question answering, medical education, knowledge assessment, question difficulty, AMBOSS, medical students
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
