Progression of an Artificial Intelligence Chatbot (ChatGPT) for Pediatric Cardiology Educational Knowledge Assessment: Considerable Gains in a Short Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Artificial intelligence chatbots, like ChatGPT, have become powerful tools that are disrupting how humans interact with technology. The potential uses within medicine are vast. In medical education, these chatbots have shown improvements, in a short time span, in generalized medical examinations. We evaluated the overall performance and improvement between ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 in a test of pediatric cardiology knowledge. Methods ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.0 were used to answer text based multiple choice questions derived from a Pediatric Cardiology Board Review textbook. Each chatbot, was given an 88 question test, subcategorized into 11 topics. We excluded questions with modalities other than text (sound clips or images). Statistical analysis was done using an unpaired two-tailed t-test. Results Of the same 88 questions, ChatGPT 4.0 answered 66% of the questions correctly (n=58/88) which was significantly greater (p<0.0001) than ChatGPT 3.5, which only answered 38% (33/88). The ChatGPT 4.0 version also did better on each subspeciality topic as compared to ChatGPT 3.5. Conclusion While acknowledging that ChatGPT does not yet offer subspecialty level knowledge in pediatric cardiology, the performance in pediatric cardiology educational assessments showed a considerable improvement in a short period of time between ChatGPT 3.5 to 4.0.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".