ChatGPT-4 Omni Performance in USMLE Disciplines and Clinical Skills: Comparative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies, including those by the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), have highlighted the remarkable capabilities of recent large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT in passing the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE). However, there is a gap in detailed analysis of these models' performance in specific medical content areas, thus limiting an assessment of their potential utility for medical education. OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the accuracy of successive ChatGPT versions (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4 Omni) in USMLE disciplines, clinical clerkships, and the clinical skills of diagnostics and management. METHODS: This study used 750 clinical vignette-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs) to characterize the performance of successive ChatGPT versions [ChatGPT 3.5 (GPT-3.5), ChatGPT 4 (GPT-4), and ChatGPT 4 Omni (GPT-4o)] across USMLE disciplines, clinical clerkships, and in clinical skills (diagnostics and management). Accuracy was assessed using a standardized protocol, with statistical analyses conducted to compare the models' performances. RESULTS: GPT-4o achieved the highest accuracy across 750 MCQs at 90.4%, outperforming GPT-4 and GPT-3.5, which scored 81.1% and 60.0% respectively. GPT-4o's highest performances were in social sciences (95.5%), behavioral and neuroscience (94.2%), and pharmacology (93.2%). In clinical skills, GPT-4o's diagnostic accuracy was 92.7% and management accuracy 88.8%, significantly higher than its predecessors. Notably, both GPT-4o and GPT-4 significantly outperformed the medical student average accuracy of 59.3% (95% CI: 58.3-60.3). CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT 4 Omni's performance in USMLE preclinical content areas as well as clinical skills indicates substantial improvements over its predecessors, suggesting significant potential for the use of this technology as an educational aid for medical students. These findings underscore the necessity of careful consideration of LLMs' integration into medical education, emphasizing the importance of structured curricula to guide their appropriate use and the need for ongoing critical analyses to ensure their reliability and effectiveness.
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 | 0.017 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".