Performance of ChatGPT on UK Standardized Admission Tests: Insights From the BMAT, TMUA, LNAT, and TSA Examinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Large language models, such as ChatGPT by OpenAI, have demonstrated potential in various applications, including medical education. Previous studies have assessed ChatGPT's performance in university or professional settings. However, the model's potential in the context of standardized admission tests remains unexplored. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated ChatGPT's performance on standardized admission tests in the United Kingdom, including the BioMedical Admissions Test (BMAT), Test of Mathematics for University Admission (TMUA), Law National Aptitude Test (LNAT), and Thinking Skills Assessment (TSA), to understand its potential as an innovative tool for education and test preparation. METHODS: Recent public resources (2019-2022) were used to compile a data set of 509 questions from the BMAT, TMUA, LNAT, and TSA covering diverse topics in aptitude, scientific knowledge and applications, mathematical thinking and reasoning, critical thinking, problem-solving, reading comprehension, and logical reasoning. This evaluation assessed ChatGPT's performance using the legacy GPT-3.5 model, focusing on multiple-choice questions for consistency. The model's performance was analyzed based on question difficulty, the proportion of correct responses when aggregating exams from all years, and a comparison of test scores between papers of the same exam using binomial distribution and paired-sample (2-tailed) t tests. RESULTS: The proportion of correct responses was significantly lower than incorrect ones in BMAT section 2 (P<.001) and TMUA paper 1 (P<.001) and paper 2 (P<.001). No significant differences were observed in BMAT section 1 (P=.2), TSA section 1 (P=.7), or LNAT papers 1 and 2, section A (P=.3). ChatGPT performed better in BMAT section 1 than section 2 (P=.047), with a maximum candidate ranking of 73% compared to a minimum of 1%. In the TMUA, it engaged with questions but had limited accuracy and no performance difference between papers (P=.6), with candidate rankings below 10%. In the LNAT, it demonstrated moderate success, especially in paper 2's questions; however, student performance data were unavailable. TSA performance varied across years with generally moderate results and fluctuating candidate rankings. Similar trends were observed for easy to moderate difficulty questions (BMAT section 1, P=.3; BMAT section 2, P=.04; TMUA paper 1, P<.001; TMUA paper 2, P=.003; TSA section 1, P=.8; and LNAT papers 1 and 2, section A, P>.99) and hard to challenging ones (BMAT section 1, P=.7; BMAT section 2, P<.001; TMUA paper 1, P=.007; TMUA paper 2, P<.001; TSA section 1, P=.3; and LNAT papers 1 and 2, section A, P=.2). CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT shows promise as a supplementary tool for subject areas and test formats that assess aptitude, problem-solving and critical thinking, and reading comprehension. However, its limitations in areas such as scientific and mathematical knowledge and applications highlight the need for continuous development and integration with conventional learning strategies in order to fully harness its potential.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".