Performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on the Korean Pharmacist Licensing Examination: Comparison Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: ChatGPT, a recently developed artificial intelligence chatbot and a notable large language model, has demonstrated improved performance on medical field examinations. However, there is currently little research on its efficacy in languages other than English or in pharmacy-related examinations. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of GPT models on the Korean Pharmacist Licensing Examination (KPLE). Methods: We evaluated the percentage of correct answers provided by 2 different versions of ChatGPT (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) for all multiple-choice single-answer KPLE questions, excluding image-based questions. In total, 320, 317, and 323 questions from the 2021, 2022, and 2023 KPLEs, respectively, were included in the final analysis, which consisted of 4 units: Biopharmacy, Industrial Pharmacy, Clinical and Practical Pharmacy, and Medical Health Legislation. Results: The 3-year average percentage of correct answers was 86.5% (830/960) for GPT-4 and 60.7% (583/960) for GPT-3.5. GPT model accuracy was highest in Biopharmacy (GPT-3.5 77/96, 80.2% in 2022; GPT-4 87/90, 96.7% in 2021) and lowest in Medical Health Legislation (GPT-3.5 8/20, 40% in 2022; GPT-4 12/20, 60% in 2022). Additionally, when comparing the performance of artificial intelligence with that of human participants, pharmacy students outperformed GPT-3.5 but not GPT-4. Conclusions: In the last 3 years, GPT models have performed very close to or exceeded the passing threshold for the KPLE. This study demonstrates the potential of large language models in the pharmacy domain; however, extensive research is needed to evaluate their reliability and ensure their secure application in pharmacy contexts due to several inherent challenges. Addressing these limitations could make GPT models more effective auxiliary tools for pharmacy education.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".