Performance of the Large Language Model ChatGPT on the National Nurse Examinations in Japan: Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ChatGPT, a large language model, has shown good performance on physician certification examinations and medical consultations. However, its performance has not been examined in languages other than English or on nursing examinations. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT on the Japanese National Nurse Examinations. METHODS: We evaluated the percentages of correct answers provided by ChatGPT (GPT-3.5) for all questions on the Japanese National Nurse Examinations from 2019 to 2023, excluding inappropriate questions and those containing images. Inappropriate questions were pointed out by a third-party organization and announced by the government to be excluded from scoring. Specifically, these include "questions with inappropriate question difficulty" and "questions with errors in the questions or choices." These examinations consist of 240 questions each year, divided into basic knowledge questions that test the basic issues of particular importance to nurses and general questions that test a wide range of specialized knowledge. Furthermore, the questions had 2 types of formats: simple-choice and situation-setup questions. Simple-choice questions are primarily knowledge-based and multiple-choice, whereas situation-setup questions entail the candidate reading a patient's and family situation's description, and selecting the nurse's action or patient's response. Hence, the questions were standardized using 2 types of prompts before requesting answers from ChatGPT. Chi-square tests were conducted to compare the percentage of correct answers for each year's examination format and specialty area related to the question. In addition, a Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed with the percentage of correct answers from 2019 to 2023. RESULTS: The 5-year average percentage of correct answers for ChatGPT was 75.1% (SD 3%) for basic knowledge questions and 64.5% (SD 5%) for general questions. The highest percentage of correct answers on the 2019 examination was 80% for basic knowledge questions and 71.2% for general questions. ChatGPT met the passing criteria for the 2019 Japanese National Nurse Examination and was close to passing the 2020-2023 examinations, with only a few more correct answers required to pass. ChatGPT had a lower percentage of correct answers in some areas, such as pharmacology, social welfare, related law and regulations, endocrinology/metabolism, and dermatology, and a higher percentage of correct answers in the areas of nutrition, pathology, hematology, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, dentistry and dental surgery, and nursing integration and practice. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT only passed the 2019 Japanese National Nursing Examination during the most recent 5 years. Although it did not pass the examinations from other years, it performed very close to the passing level, even in those containing questions related to psychology, communication, and nursing.
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 | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".