Pure Wisdom or Potemkin Villages? A Comparison of ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4 on USMLE Step 3 Style Questions: Quantitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) has been critical in medical education since 1992, testing various aspects of a medical student's knowledge and skills through different steps, based on their training level. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including chatbots like ChatGPT, are emerging technologies with potential applications in medicine. However, comprehensive studies analyzing ChatGPT's performance on USMLE Step 3 in large-scale scenarios and comparing different versions of ChatGPT are limited. OBJECTIVE: This paper aimed to analyze ChatGPT's performance on USMLE Step 3 practice test questions to better elucidate the strengths and weaknesses of AI use in medical education and deduce evidence-based strategies to counteract AI cheating. METHODS: A total of 2069 USMLE Step 3 practice questions were extracted from the AMBOSS study platform. After including 229 image-based questions, a total of 1840 text-based questions were further categorized and entered into ChatGPT 3.5, while a subset of 229 questions were entered into ChatGPT 4. Responses were recorded, and the accuracy of ChatGPT answers as well as its performance in different test question categories and for different difficulty levels were compared between both versions. RESULTS: Overall, ChatGPT 4 demonstrated a statistically significant superior performance compared to ChatGPT 3.5, achieving an accuracy of 84.7% (194/229) and 56.9% (1047/1840), respectively. A noteworthy correlation was observed between the length of test questions and the performance of ChatGPT 3.5 (ρ=-0.069; P=.003), which was absent in ChatGPT 4 (P=.87). Additionally, the difficulty of test questions, as categorized by AMBOSS hammer ratings, showed a statistically significant correlation with performance for both ChatGPT versions, with ρ=-0.289 for ChatGPT 3.5 and ρ=-0.344 for ChatGPT 4. ChatGPT 4 surpassed ChatGPT 3.5 in all levels of test question difficulty, except for the 2 highest difficulty tiers (4 and 5 hammers), where statistical significance was not reached. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, ChatGPT 4 demonstrated remarkable proficiency in taking the USMLE Step 3, with an accuracy rate of 84.7% (194/229), outshining ChatGPT 3.5 with an accuracy rate of 56.9% (1047/1840). Although ChatGPT 4 performed exceptionally, it encountered difficulties in questions requiring the application of theoretical concepts, particularly in cardiology and neurology. These insights are pivotal for the development of examination strategies that are resilient to AI and underline the promising role of AI in the realm of medical education and diagnostics.
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 | 0.019 | 0.170 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".