Cited by 107Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationInnovations in Medical EducationArtificial Intelligence in Education

ChatGPT-4 Omni Performance in USMLE Disciplines and Clinical Skills: Comparative Analysis

Open access
Bicknell, Brenton T, Butler, Danner, Whalen, Sydney, Ricks, James, Dixon, Cory J, Clark, Abigail B, Spaedy, Olivia, Skelton, Adam +6 more·2024·JMIR Medical Education

Abstract

Background: Recent studies, including those by the National Board of Medical Examiners, 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 LLM performance in specific medical content areas, thus limiting an assessment of their potential utility in medical education. Objective: This study aimed 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 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 multiple-choice questions 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 was 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: GPT-4o’s performance in USMLE disciplines, clinical clerkships, and 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 need for careful consideration when integrating LLMs 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.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/63430

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Subsequent evaluations of GPT-4 and GPT-4 Omni documented substantially higher accuracy, frequently exceeding 88-90% correct responses, and outperforming earlier large language models on tasks requiring both factual recall and clinical reasoning.

    “Subsequent evaluations of GPT-4 and GPT-4 Omni documented substantially higher accuracy, frequently exceeding 88-90% correct responses, and, most notably, outperforming earlier LLMs on tasks requiring both factual recall and clinical reasoning (Bicknell et al. 2024;Chen et al. 2024).”

    From Evidence on Demand: OpenEvidence versus Established LLMs on the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination (2026) · cites this paper as Bicknell et al. 2024

    The Results report that GPT-4o scored 90.4% overall and outperformed GPT-4 and GPT-3.5; the diagnostics and management results also show improvements over earlier models. However, GPT-4 scored 81.1% overall, so the suggestion that both newer models frequently exceeded 88–90% is not supported by the overall results. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Several studies have evaluated large language model performance on high-stakes examinations, including the USMLE, demonstrating passing-level performance without specific fine-tuning.

    “Several studies have evaluated LLM performance on high-stakes examinations, including the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), demonstrating passing-level performance without specific fine-tuning (Brin et al. 2023;Bicknell et al. 2024;Kung et al. 2023).”

    From Evidence on Demand: OpenEvidence versus Established LLMs on the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination (2026) · cites this paper as Bicknell et al. 2024

    The Introduction’s “Previous Assessments of LLM Accuracy in Medical Contexts” reports that ChatGPT achieved passing scores on USMLE Step exams in a prior study. This paper’s own Methods describe testing ChatGPT through ordinary chat sessions, but the copy does not explicitly establish the claimed absence of specific fine-tuning; its Study Limitations also say its questions were USMLE-style, not actual exam questions. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. [4]Chen S Kann BH Foote MB et al Use of artificial intelligence chatbots for cancer treatment information JAMA Oncol Oct 1 2023 9 10 1459 1462 doi 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.2954 Medline 37615976 PMC10450584 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [6]Feng S Shen Y ChatGPT and the future of medical education Acad Med Aug 1 2023 98 8 867 868 doi 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005242 Medline 37162219 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [7]Müller MEB Laupichler MC Medical students learning about AI - with AI? Med Educ Nov 2023 57 11 1156 doi 10.1111/medu.15211 Medline 37712554 · DOI
  4. [8]Kirpalani A Grimmer J Wang PZT Med versus machine: Using ChatGPT in team-based learning Med Educ Nov 2023 57 11 1159 1160 doi 10.1111/medu.15226 Medline 37709349 · DOI
  5. [9]Abouzeid E Harris P Using AI to produce problem-based learning cases Med Educ Nov 2023 57 11 1154 1155 doi 10.1111/medu.15213 Medline 37705173 · DOI
  6. [10]Shen Y Heacock L Elias J et al ChatGPT and other large language models are double-edged swords Radiology Apr 2023 307 2 e230163 doi 10.1148/radiol.230163 Medline 36700838 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [13]Lawrence ECN Dine CJ Kogan JR Preclerkship medical students’ use of third-party learning resources JAMA Netw Open Dec 1 2023 6 12 e2345971 doi 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.45971 Medline 38048132 PMC10696480 · DOI
  8. [14]Burk-Rafel J Santen SA Purkiss J Study behaviors and USMLE step 1 performance: implications of a student self-directed parallel curriculum Acad Med 2017 92 11S S67 S74 doi 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001916 29065026 · DOI
  9. [15]Wu JH Gruppuso PA Adashi EY The self-directed medical student curriculum J Am Med Assoc Nov 23 2021 326 20 2005 2006 doi 10.1001/jama.2021.16312 Medline 34724030 · DOI
  10. [16]Mihalache A Huang RS Popovic MM Muni RH ChatGPT-4: an assessment of an upgraded artificial intelligence chatbot in the United States Medical Licensing Examination Med Teach Mar 2024 46 3 366 372 doi 10.1080/0142159X.2023.2249588 Medline 37839017 · DOI
  11. [17]Ali R Tang OY Connolly ID et al Performance of ChatGPT, GPT-4, and Google Bard on a neurosurgery oral boards preparation question bank Neurosurgery Nov 1 2023 93 5 1090 1098 doi 10.1227/neu.0000000000002551 Medline 37306460 · DOI
  12. [18]Rizzo MG Cai N Constantinescu D The performance of ChatGPT on orthopaedic in-service training exams: a comparative study of the GPT-3.5 turbo and GPT-4 models in orthopaedic education J Orthop Apr 2024 50 70 75 doi 10.1016/j.jor.2023.11.056 Medline 38173829 PMC10758621 · DOI
  13. [19]Garabet R Mackey BP Cross J Weingarten M ChatGPT-4 performance on USMLE step 1 style questions and its implications for medical education: a comparative study across systems and disciplines Med Sci Educ Feb 2024 34 1 145 152 doi 10.1007/s40670-023-01956-z Medline 38510401 PMC10948644 · DOI
  14. [20]Gilson A Safranek CW Huang T et al How does ChatGPT perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)? The implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment JMIR Med Educ Feb 8 2023 9 e45312 doi 10.2196/45312 Medline 36753318 PMC9947764 · DOI · Paper page
  15. [21]Kung TH Cheatham M Medenilla A et al Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models PLOS Digit Health Feb 2023 2 2 e0000198 doi 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198 Medline 36812645 PMC9931230 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [22]Nori H King N McKinney SM Carignan D Horvitz E Capabilities of GPT-4 on medical challenge problems arXiv Preprint posted online on Mar 20 2023 doi 10.48550/arXiv.2303.13375 · DOI · Paper page
  17. [25]Brin D Sorin V Vaid A et al Comparing ChatGPT and GPT-4 performance in USMLE soft skill assessments Sci Rep Oct 1 2023 13 1 16492 doi 10.1038/s41598-023-43436-9 Medline 37779171 PMC10543445 · DOI · Paper page
  18. [26]Yaneva V Baldwin P Jurich DP Swygert K Clauser BE Examining ChatGPT Performance on USMLE Sample Items and Implications for Assessment Acad Med Feb 1 2024 99 2 192 197 doi 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005549 Medline 37934828 PMC11444356 · DOI
  19. [32]Miao J Thongprayoon C Cheungpasitporn W Assessing the accuracy of ChatGPT on core questions in glomerular disease Kidney Int Rep Aug 2023 8 8 1657 1659 doi 10.1016/j.ekir.2023.05.014 Medline 37547515 PMC10403654 · DOI
  20. [34]Hoch CC Wollenberg B Lüers JC et al ChatGPT’s quiz skills in different otolaryngology subspecialties: an analysis of 2576 single-choice and multiple-choice board certification preparation questions Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Sep 2023 280 9 4271 4278 doi 10.1007/s00405-023-08051-4 Medline 37285018 PMC10382366 · DOI · Paper page
  21. [35]Chen TC Multala E Kearns P et al Assessment of ChatGPT’s performance on neurology written board examination questions BMJ Neurol Open 2023 5 2 e000530 doi 10.1136/bmjno-2023-000530 Medline 37936648 PMC10626870 · DOI
  22. [36]Kanaya T Magine A How can the current state of AI guide future conversations of general intelligence? J Intell Mar 20 2024 12 3 36 doi 10.3390/jintelligence12030036 Medline 38535170 PMC10971177 · DOI
  23. [37]Abd-Alrazaq A AlSaad R Alhuwail D et al Large language models in medical education: opportunities, challenges, and future directions JMIR Med Educ Jun 1 2023 9 e48291 doi 10.2196/48291 Medline 37261894 PMC10273039 · DOI · Paper page
  24. [38]Balas M Wadden JJ Hébert PC et al Exploring the potential utility of AI large language models for medical ethics: an expert panel evaluation of GPT-4 J Med Ethics 01 23 2024 50 2 90 96 doi 10.1136/jme-2023-109549 Medline 37945336 · DOI
  25. [39]Reese JT Danis D Caufield JH et al On the limitations of large language models in clinical diagnosis medRxiv Preprint posted online on Feb 26 2024 doi 10.1101/2023.07.13.23292613 · DOI
  26. [41]Chin MH Afsar-Manesh N Bierman AS et al Guiding principles to address the impact of algorithm bias on racial and ethnic disparities in health and health care JAMA Netw Open Dec 1 2023 6 12 e2345050 doi 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.45050 Medline 38100101 PMC11181958 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bicknell, B. T., Butler, D., Whalen, S., Ricks, J., Dixon, C. J., Clark, A. B., Spaedy, O., Skelton, A., Edupuganti, N., Dzubinski, L., Tate, H., Dyess, G., Lindeman, B., & Lehmann, L. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • University of South Alabama (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Alabama College of Osteopathic Medicine (US)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • Saint Louis University (US)
  • Augusta University (US)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
Corresponding author
Bicknell, Brenton T
Venue
JMIR Medical Education
Published
2024-11-06
Volume
10
Pages
e63430-e63430
ISSN
2369-3762 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4402540843
Cited by
107
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 1
FWCI
10.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
GPT-4o, large language models, USMLE, medical licensing examinations, clinical vignettes, multiple-choice questions, diagnostic accuracy, clinical management, medical education, artificial intelligence in medical education, GPT-3.5, GPT-4, 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