Performance of ChatGPT on the India Undergraduate Community Medicine Examination: Cross-Sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Medical students may increasingly use large language models (LLMs) in their learning. ChatGPT is an LLM at the forefront of this new development in medical education with the capacity to respond to multidisciplinary questions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of ChatGPT 3.5 to complete the Indian undergraduate medical examination in the subject of community medicine. We further compared ChatGPT scores with the scores obtained by the students. METHODS: The study was conducted at a publicly funded medical college in Hyderabad, India. The study was based on the internal assessment examination conducted in January 2023 for students in the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery Final Year-Part I program; the examination of focus included 40 questions (divided between two papers) from the community medicine subject syllabus. Each paper had three sections with different weightage of marks for each section: section one had two long essay-type questions worth 15 marks each, section two had 8 short essay-type questions worth 5 marks each, and section three had 10 short-answer questions worth 3 marks each. The same questions were administered as prompts to ChatGPT 3.5 and the responses were recorded. Apart from scoring ChatGPT responses, two independent evaluators explored the responses to each question to further analyze their quality with regard to three subdomains: relevancy, coherence, and completeness. Each question was scored in these subdomains on a Likert scale of 1-5. The average of the two evaluators was taken as the subdomain score of the question. The proportion of questions with a score 50% of the maximum score (5) in each subdomain was calculated. RESULTS: ChatGPT 3.5 scored 72.3% on paper 1 and 61% on paper 2. The mean score of the 94 students was 43% on paper 1 and 45% on paper 2. The responses of ChatGPT 3.5 were also rated to be satisfactorily relevant, coherent, and complete for most of the questions (>80%). CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT 3.5 appears to have substantial and sufficient knowledge to understand and answer the Indian medical undergraduate examination in the subject of community medicine. ChatGPT may be introduced to students to enable the self-directed learning of community medicine in pilot mode. However, faculty oversight will be required as ChatGPT is still in the initial stages of development, and thus its potential and reliability of medical content from the Indian context need to be further explored comprehensively.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».