MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385236484 · doi:10.2196/48978

Performance of ChatGPT on the Situational Judgement Test—A Professional Dilemmas–Based Examination for Doctors in the United Kingdom

2023· article· en· W4385236484 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robin Borchert, Charlotte R Hickman, J. Pepys, Timothy J Sadler

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsJudgementTest (biology)Situational ethicsMedical educationPsychologyTeamworkClinical judgementMedicineApplied psychologySocial psychologyFamily medicineManagementPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: ChatGPT is a large language model that has performed well on professional examinations in the fields of medicine, law, and business. However, it is unclear how ChatGPT would perform on an examination assessing professionalism and situational judgement for doctors. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the performance of ChatGPT on the Situational Judgement Test (SJT): a national examination taken by all final-year medical students in the United Kingdom. This examination is designed to assess attributes such as communication, teamwork, patient safety, prioritization skills, professionalism, and ethics. METHODS: All questions from the UK Foundation Programme Office's (UKFPO's) 2023 SJT practice examination were inputted into ChatGPT. For each question, ChatGPT's answers and rationales were recorded and assessed on the basis of the official UK Foundation Programme Office scoring template. Questions were categorized into domains of Good Medical Practice on the basis of the domains referenced in the rationales provided in the scoring sheet. Questions without clear domain links were screened by reviewers and assigned one or multiple domains. ChatGPT's overall performance, as well as its performance across the domains of Good Medical Practice, was evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, ChatGPT performed well, scoring 76% on the SJT but scoring full marks on only a few questions (9%), which may reflect possible flaws in ChatGPT's situational judgement or inconsistencies in the reasoning across questions (or both) in the examination itself. ChatGPT demonstrated consistent performance across the 4 outlined domains in Good Medical Practice for doctors. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to understand the potential applications of large language models, such as ChatGPT, in medical education for standardizing questions and providing consistent rationales for examinations assessing professionalism and ethics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.182
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical EducationSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207