Performance of ChatGPT incorporated chain-of-thought method in bilingual nuclear medicine physician board examinations
Open accessAbstract
Objective: This research explores the performance of ChatGPT, compared to human doctors, in bilingual, Mandarin Chinese and English, medical specialty exam in Nuclear Medicine in Taiwan. Methods: The study employed generative pre-trained transformer (GPT-4) and integrated chain-of-thoughts (COT) method to enhance performance by triggering and explaining the thinking process to answer the question in a coherent and logical manner. Questions from the Taiwanese Nuclear Medicine Specialty Exam served as the basis for testing. The research analyzed the correctness of AI responses in different sections of the exam and explored the influence of question length and language proportion on accuracy. Results: AI, especially ChatGPT with COT, exhibited exceptional capabilities in theoretical knowledge, clinical medicine, and handling integrated questions, often surpassing, or matching human doctor performance. However, AI struggled with questions related to medical regulations. The analysis of question length showed that questions within the 109–163 words range yielded the highest accuracy. Moreover, an increase in the proportion of English words in questions improved both AI and human accuracy. Conclusions: This research highlights the potential and challenges of AI in the medical field. ChatGPT demonstrates significant competence in various aspects of medical knowledge. However, areas like medical regulations require improvement. The study also suggests that AI may help in evaluating exam question difficulty and maintaining fairness in examinations. These findings shed light on AI role in the medical field, with potential applications in healthcare education, exam preparation, and multilingual environments. Ongoing AI advancements are expected to further enhance AI utility in the medical domain.
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
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?
LLMs have demonstrated strong performance across a wide range of biomedical knowledge and reasoning tasks.
“LLMs have demonstrated strong performance across a wide range of biomedical knowledge and reasoning tasks, accelerating their adoption in health care workflows [1-6].”
From Retrieve-Then-Verify for Evaluating Evidence Support and Hallucination in Large Language Model–Generated Medical Information: Empirical Study (2026) · cites this paper as [3]
The Discussion reports strong performance on theoretical, clinical, and integrated questions in a bilingual nuclear medicine exam, but the Conclusion also reports 0% accuracy on medical legal regulation questions. This supports performance on several biomedical knowledge and reasoning tasks, not a wide range of tasks generally; the cited passages also do not establish accelerated adoption in health care workflows. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
ChatGPT passing USMLE shines a spotlight on the flaws of medical education
Mbakwe, A. B., Lourentzou, I., Celi, L. A., Mechanic, O. J., & Dagan, A. (2023) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000205 · Cited by 273 · see citing works
Das, D., Kumar, N., Longjam, L. A., Sinha, R., Deb Roy, A., Mondal, H., & Gupta, P. (2023) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.36034 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Mondal, H., Marndi, G., Behera, J. K., & Mondal, S. (2023) · Indian Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery · doi:10.4103/ijves.ijves_37_23 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- [1]Huh S. Are ChatGPT’s knowledge and interpretation ability comparable to those of medical students in Korea for taking a parasitology examination?: a descriptive study. J Educ Eval Health Prof 2023; 20: 1. 36627845 PMC9905868
- [2]Biswas S. ChatGPT and the future of medical writing. Radiology 2023; 307: e223312. 36728748
- [3]Kung TH, et al. Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digit Health 2023; 2: e0000198. PMC9931230 36812645
- [5]Haleem A Javaid M Singh RP. An era of ChatGPT as a significant futuristic support tool: a study on features, abilities, and challenges. BenchCouncil Trans Benchmarks Stand Eval 2022; 2: 100089.
- [6]Vaswani A Shazeer N Parmar N, et al. Attention is all you need. arXiv 2017; 1706.03762. 10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762 · DOI · Paper page
- [7]Biswas SS. Role of chat GPT in public health. Ann Biomed Eng 2023; 51: 868– 869. 36920578
- [8]Biswas S. Role of chat GPT in education. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4369981 (accessed 25 February 2023).
- [9]OpenAI. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv; 2023; 2303.08774. 10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 · DOI · Paper page
- [10]Wei J Wang X Schuurmans D, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv; 2023: 2201.11903. 10.48550/arXiv.2201.11903 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Liang, Z., Sheffield, C., Butera, G., & Antani, S. (2026) · JMIR AI · doi:10.2196/93761
- Authors
- Ting, Y.-T., Hsieh, T.-C., Wang, Y.-F., Kuo, Y.-C., Chen, Y.-J., Chan, P.-K., & Kao, C.-H.
- Affiliations
- China Medical University (TW)
- National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University (TW)
- Asia University (TW)
- Corresponding author
- Kao, Chia-Hung
- Venue
- DIGITAL HEALTH
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2024-01
- Volume
- 10
- Pages
- 20552076231224074-20552076231224074
- ISSN
- 2055-2076 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10771043
- OpenAlex
- W4390613062
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7
- FWCI
- 2.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- China Medical University Hospital
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, chain-of-thought prompting, GPT-4, question length, medical regulation, exam question difficulty, medical education
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