Performance of Plug-In Augmented ChatGPT and Its Ability to Quantify Uncertainty: Simulation Study on the German Medical Board Examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The GPT-4 is a large language model (LLM) trained and fine-tuned on an extensive dataset. After the public release of its predecessor in November 2022, the use of LLMs has seen a significant spike in interest, and a multitude of potential use cases have been proposed. In parallel, however, important limitations have been outlined. Particularly, current LLMs encounter limitations, especially in symbolic representation and accessing contemporary data. The recent version of GPT-4, alongside newly released plugin features, has been introduced to mitigate some of these limitations. Objective: Before this background, this work aims to investigate the performance of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, GPT-4 with plugins, and GPT-4 with plugins using pretranslated English text on the German medical board examination. Recognizing the critical importance of quantifying uncertainty for LLM applications in medicine, we furthermore assess this ability and develop a new metric termed "confidence accuracy" to evaluate it. Methods: We used GPT-3.5, GPT-4, GPT-4 with plugins, and GPT-4 with plugins and translation to answer questions from the German medical board examination. Additionally, we conducted an analysis to assess how the models justify their answers, the accuracy of their responses, and the error structure of their answers. Bootstrapping and CIs were used to evaluate the statistical significance of our findings. Results: This study demonstrated that available GPT models, as LLM examples, exceeded the minimum competency threshold established by the German medical board for medical students to obtain board certification to practice medicine. Moreover, the models could assess the uncertainty in their responses, albeit exhibiting overconfidence. Additionally, this work unraveled certain justification and reasoning structures that emerge when GPT generates answers. Conclusions: The high performance of GPTs in answering medical questions positions it well for applications in academia and, potentially, clinical practice. Its capability to quantify uncertainty in answers suggests it could be a valuable artificial intelligence agent within the clinical decision-making loop. Nevertheless, significant challenges must be addressed before artificial intelligence agents can be robustly and safely implemented in the medical domain.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".