Large Language Models as Tools to Generate Radiology Board-Style Multiple-Choice Questions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale and ObjectivesTo determine the potential of large language models (LLMs) to be used as tools by radiology educators to create radiology board-style multiple choice questions (MCQs), answers, and rationales.MethodsTwo LLMs (Llama 2 and GPT-4) were used to develop 104 MCQs based on the American Board of Radiology exam blueprint. Two board-certified radiologists assessed each MCQ using a 10-point Likert scale across five criteria—clarity, relevance, suitability for a board exam based on level of difficulty, quality of distractors, and adequacy of rationale. For comparison, MCQs from prior American College of Radiology (ACR) Diagnostic Radiology In-Training (DXIT) exams were also assessed using these criteria, with radiologists blinded to the question source.ResultsMean scores (±standard deviation) for clarity, relevance, suitability, quality of distractors, and adequacy of rationale were 8.7 (±1.4), 9.2 (±1.3), 9.0 (±1.2), 8.4 (±1.9), and 7.2 (±2.2), respectively, for Llama 2; 9.9 (±0.4), 9.9 (±0.5), 9.9 (±0.4), 9.8 (±0.5), and 9.9 (±0.3), respectively, for GPT-4; and 9.9 (±0.3), 9.9 (±0.2), 9.9 (±0.2), 9.9 (±0.4), and 9.8 (±0.6), respectively, for ACR DXIT items (p < 0.001 for Llama 2 vs. ACR DXIT across all criteria; no statistically significant difference for GPT-4 vs. ACR DXIT). The accuracy of model-generated answers was 69% for Llama 2 and 100% for GPT-4.ConclusionA state-of-the art LLM such as GPT-4 may be used to develop radiology board-style MCQs and rationales to enhance exam preparation materials and expand exam banks, and may allow radiology educators to further use MCQs as teaching and learning tools. To determine the potential of large language models (LLMs) to be used as tools by radiology educators to create radiology board-style multiple choice questions (MCQs), answers, and rationales. Two LLMs (Llama 2 and GPT-4) were used to develop 104 MCQs based on the American Board of Radiology exam blueprint. Two board-certified radiologists assessed each MCQ using a 10-point Likert scale across five criteria—clarity, relevance, suitability for a board exam based on level of difficulty, quality of distractors, and adequacy of rationale. For comparison, MCQs from prior American College of Radiology (ACR) Diagnostic Radiology In-Training (DXIT) exams were also assessed using these criteria, with radiologists blinded to the question source. Mean scores (±standard deviation) for clarity, relevance, suitability, quality of distractors, and adequacy of rationale were 8.7 (±1.4), 9.2 (±1.3), 9.0 (±1.2), 8.4 (±1.9), and 7.2 (±2.2), respectively, for Llama 2; 9.9 (±0.4), 9.9 (±0.5), 9.9 (±0.4), 9.8 (±0.5), and 9.9 (±0.3), respectively, for GPT-4; and 9.9 (±0.3), 9.9 (±0.2), 9.9 (±0.2), 9.9 (±0.4), and 9.8 (±0.6), respectively, for ACR DXIT items (p < 0.001 for Llama 2 vs. ACR DXIT across all criteria; no statistically significant difference for GPT-4 vs. ACR DXIT). The accuracy of model-generated answers was 69% for Llama 2 and 100% for GPT-4. A state-of-the art LLM such as GPT-4 may be used to develop radiology board-style MCQs and rationales to enhance exam preparation materials and expand exam banks, and may allow radiology educators to further use MCQs as teaching and learning tools.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it