Assessment of Pathology Domain-Specific Knowledge of ChatGPT and Comparison to Human Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT.—: Artificial intelligence algorithms hold the potential to fundamentally change many aspects of society. Application of these tools, including the publicly available ChatGPT, has demonstrated impressive domain-specific knowledge in many areas, including medicine. OBJECTIVES.—: To understand the level of pathology domain-specific knowledge for ChatGPT using different underlying large language models, GPT-3.5 and the updated GPT-4. DESIGN.—: An international group of pathologists (n = 15) was recruited to generate pathology-specific questions at a similar level to those that could be seen on licensing (board) examinations. The questions (n = 15) were answered by GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and a staff pathologist who recently passed their Canadian pathology licensing exams. Participants were instructed to score answers on a 5-point scale and to predict which answer was written by ChatGPT. RESULTS.—: GPT-3.5 performed at a similar level to the staff pathologist, while GPT-4 outperformed both. The overall score for both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 was within the range of meeting expectations for a trainee writing licensing examinations. In all but one question, the reviewers were able to correctly identify the answers generated by GPT-3.5. CONCLUSIONS.—: By demonstrating the ability of ChatGPT to answer pathology-specific questions at a level similar to (GPT-3.5) or exceeding (GPT-4) a trained pathologist, this study highlights the potential of large language models to be transformative in this space. In the future, more advanced iterations of these algorithms with increased domain-specific knowledge may have the potential to assist pathologists and enhance pathology resident training.
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 | 0.062 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".