Assessing the Performance of ChatGPT in Medical Biochemistry Using Clinical Case Vignettes: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ChatGPT has gained global attention recently owing to its high performance in generating a wide range of information and retrieving any kind of data instantaneously. ChatGPT has also been tested for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) and has successfully cleared it. Thus, its usability in medical education is now one of the key discussions worldwide. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT in medical biochemistry using clinical case vignettes. METHODS: The performance of ChatGPT was evaluated in medical biochemistry using 10 clinical case vignettes. Clinical case vignettes were randomly selected and inputted in ChatGPT along with the response options. We tested the responses for each clinical case twice. The answers generated by ChatGPT were saved and checked using our reference material. RESULTS: ChatGPT generated correct answers for 4 questions on the first attempt. For the other cases, there were differences in responses generated by ChatGPT in the first and second attempts. In the second attempt, ChatGPT provided correct answers for 6 questions and incorrect answers for 4 questions out of the 10 cases that were used. But, to our surprise, for case 3, different answers were obtained with multiple attempts. We believe this to have happened owing to the complexity of the case, which involved addressing various critical medical aspects related to amino acid metabolism in a balanced approach. CONCLUSIONS: According to the findings of our study, ChatGPT may not be considered an accurate information provider for application in medical education to improve learning and assessment. However, our study was limited by a small sample size (10 clinical case vignettes) and the use of the publicly available version of ChatGPT (version 3.5). Although artificial intelligence (AI) has the capability to transform medical education, we emphasize the validation of such data produced by such AI systems for correctness and dependability before it could be implemented in practice.
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 | 0.024 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".