MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393082517 · doi:10.2196/55595

Exploring the Performance of ChatGPT-4 in the Taiwan Audiologist Qualification Examination: Preliminary Observational Study Highlighting the Potential of AI Chatbots in Hearing Care

2024· article· en· W4393082517 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shangqiguo Wang, Changgeng Mo, Yuan Chen, Xiaolu Dai, Huiyi Wang, Xiaoli Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologistAudiologyPsychologyRehabilitationHealth careMedicineHearing lossNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, such as ChatGPT-4, have shown immense potential for application across various aspects of medicine, including medical education, clinical practice, and research. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT-4 in the 2023 Taiwan Audiologist Qualification Examination, thereby preliminarily exploring the potential utility of AI chatbots in the fields of audiology and hearing care services. Methods: ChatGPT-4 was tasked to provide answers and reasoning for the 2023 Taiwan Audiologist Qualification Examination. The examination encompassed six subjects: (1) basic auditory science, (2) behavioral audiology, (3) electrophysiological audiology, (4) principles and practice of hearing devices, (5) health and rehabilitation of the auditory and balance systems, and (6) auditory and speech communication disorders (including professional ethics). Each subject included 50 multiple-choice questions, with the exception of behavioral audiology, which had 49 questions, amounting to a total of 299 questions. Results: The correct answer rates across the 6 subjects were as follows: 88% for basic auditory science, 63% for behavioral audiology, 58% for electrophysiological audiology, 72% for principles and practice of hearing devices, 80% for health and rehabilitation of the auditory and balance systems, and 86% for auditory and speech communication disorders (including professional ethics). The overall accuracy rate for the 299 questions was 75%, which surpasses the examination's passing criteria of an average 60% accuracy rate across all subjects. A comprehensive review of ChatGPT-4's responses indicated that incorrect answers were predominantly due to information errors. Conclusions: ChatGPT-4 demonstrated a robust performance in the Taiwan Audiologist Qualification Examination, showcasing effective logical reasoning skills. Our results suggest that with enhanced information accuracy, ChatGPT-4's performance could be further improved. This study indicates significant potential for the application of AI chatbots in audiology and hearing care services.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.276
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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