MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406832191 · doi:10.2196/56850

Performance of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 in the Taiwan National Pharmacist Licensing Examination: Comparative Evaluation Study

2025· article· en· W4406832191 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ying-Mei Wang, Hung-Wei Shen, Tzeng‐Ji Chen, Shu‐Chiung Chiang, T. C. Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacistPharmacySituational ethicsMedicineClinical pharmacyMedical physicsFamily medicineMedical educationPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: OpenAI released versions ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4 between 2022 and 2023. GPT-3.5 has demonstrated proficiency in various examinations, particularly the United States Medical Licensing Examination. However, GPT-4 has more advanced capabilities. Objective: This study aims to examine the efficacy of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 within the Taiwan National Pharmacist Licensing Examination and to ascertain their utility and potential application in clinical pharmacy and education. Methods: The pharmacist examination in Taiwan consists of 2 stages: basic subjects and clinical subjects. In this study, exam questions were manually fed into the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models, and their responses were recorded; graphic-based questions were excluded. This study encompassed three steps: (1) determining the answering accuracy of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, (2) categorizing question types and observing differences in model performance across these categories, and (3) comparing model performance on calculation and situational questions. Microsoft Excel and R software were used for statistical analyses. Results: GPT-4 achieved an accuracy rate of 72.9%, overshadowing GPT-3.5, which achieved 59.1% (P<.001). In the basic subjects category, GPT-4 significantly outperformed GPT-3.5 (73.4% vs 53.2%; P<.001). However, in clinical subjects, only minor differences in accuracy were observed. Specifically, GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3.5 in the calculation and situational questions. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that GPT-4 outperforms GPT-3.5 in the Taiwan National Pharmacist Licensing Examination, particularly in basic subjects. While GPT-4 shows potential for use in clinical practice and pharmacy education, its limitations warrant caution. Future research should focus on refining prompts, improving model stability, integrating medical databases, and designing questions that better assess student competence and minimize guessing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.196
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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