MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404917666 · doi:10.2196/59902

Performance Comparison of Junior Residents and ChatGPT in the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) for Medical History Taking and Documentation of Medical Records: Development and Usability Study

2024· article· en· W4404917666 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ting-Yun Huang, Pei Hsing Hsieh, Yung‐Chun Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationMedical recordChecklistObjective structured clinical examinationMedical historyMedical educationUsabilityPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: This study explores the cutting-edge abilities of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT in medical history taking and medical record documentation, with a focus on their practical effectiveness in clinical settings-an area vital for the progress of medical artificial intelligence. Objective: Our aim was to assess the capability of ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 in performing medical history taking and medical record documentation in simulated clinical environments. The study compared the performance of nonmedical individuals using ChatGPT with that of junior medical residents. Methods: A simulation involving standardized patients was designed to mimic authentic medical history-taking interactions. Five nonmedical participants used ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 to conduct medical histories and document medical records, mirroring the tasks performed by 5 junior residents in identical scenarios. A total of 10 diverse scenarios were examined. Results: Evaluation of the medical documentation created by laypersons with ChatGPT assistance and those created by junior residents was conducted by 2 senior emergency physicians using audio recordings and the final medical records. The assessment used the Objective Structured Clinical Examination benchmarks in Taiwan as a reference. ChatGPT-4.0 exhibited substantial enhancements over its predecessor and met or exceeded the performance of human counterparts in terms of both checklist and global assessment scores. Although the overall quality of human consultations remained higher, ChatGPT-4.0's proficiency in medical documentation was notably promising. Conclusions: The performance of ChatGPT 4.0 was on par with that of human participants in Objective Structured Clinical Examination evaluations, signifying its potential in medical history and medical record documentation. Despite this, the superiority of human consultations in terms of quality was evident. The study underscores both the promise and the current limitations of LLMs in the realm of clinical practice.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.389 · 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

Citations22
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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