Performance Comparison of ChatGPT-4 and Japanese Medical Residents in the General Medicine In-Training Examination: Comparison Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The reliability of GPT-4, a state-of-the-art expansive language model specializing in clinical reasoning and medical knowledge, remains largely unverified across non-English languages. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare fundamental clinical competencies between Japanese residents and GPT-4 by using the General Medicine In-Training Examination (GM-ITE). METHODS: We used the GPT-4 model provided by OpenAI and the GM-ITE examination questions for the years 2020, 2021, and 2022 to conduct a comparative analysis. This analysis focused on evaluating the performance of individuals who were concluding their second year of residency in comparison to that of GPT-4. Given the current abilities of GPT-4, our study included only single-choice exam questions, excluding those involving audio, video, or image data. The assessment included 4 categories: general theory (professionalism and medical interviewing), symptomatology and clinical reasoning, physical examinations and clinical procedures, and specific diseases. Additionally, we categorized the questions into 7 specialty fields and 3 levels of difficulty, which were determined based on residents' correct response rates. RESULTS: Upon examination of 137 GM-ITE questions in Japanese, GPT-4 scores were significantly higher than the mean scores of residents (residents: 55.8%, GPT-4: 70.1%; P<.001). In terms of specific disciplines, GPT-4 scored 23.5 points higher in the "specific diseases," 30.9 points higher in "obstetrics and gynecology," and 26.1 points higher in "internal medicine." In contrast, GPT-4 scores in "medical interviewing and professionalism," "general practice," and "psychiatry" were lower than those of the residents, although this discrepancy was not statistically significant. Upon analyzing scores based on question difficulty, GPT-4 scores were 17.2 points lower for easy problems (P=.007) but were 25.4 and 24.4 points higher for normal and difficult problems, respectively (P<.001). In year-on-year comparisons, GPT-4 scores were 21.7 and 21.5 points higher in the 2020 (P=.01) and 2022 (P=.003) examinations, respectively, but only 3.5 points higher in the 2021 examinations (no significant difference). CONCLUSIONS: In the Japanese language, GPT-4 also outperformed the average medical residents in the GM-ITE test, originally designed for them. Specifically, GPT-4 demonstrated a tendency to score higher on difficult questions with low resident correct response rates and those demanding a more comprehensive understanding of diseases. However, GPT-4 scored comparatively lower on questions that residents could readily answer, such as those testing attitudes toward patients and professionalism, as well as those necessitating an understanding of context and communication. These findings highlight the strengths and limitations of artificial intelligence applications in medical education and practice.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».