ChatGPT’s Performance on Portuguese Medical Examination Questions: Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo and ChatGPT-4o Mini
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Advancements in ChatGPT are transforming medical education by providing new tools for assessment and learning, potentially enhancing evaluations for doctors and improving instructional effectiveness. Objective: This study evaluates the performance and consistency of ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo and ChatGPT-4o mini in solving European Portuguese medical examination questions (2023 National Examination for Access to Specialized Training; Prova Nacional de Acesso à Formação Especializada [PNA]) and compares their performance to human candidates. Methods: ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo was tested on the first part of the examination (74 questions) on July 18, 2024, and ChatGPT-4o mini on the second part (74 questions) on July 19, 2024. Each model generated an answer using its natural language processing capabilities. To test consistency, each model was asked, "Are you sure?" after providing an answer. Differences between the first and second responses of each model were analyzed using the McNemar test with continuity correction. A single-parameter t test compared the models' performance to human candidates. Frequencies and percentages were used for categorical variables, and means and CIs for numerical variables. Statistical significance was set at P<.05. Results: ChatGPT-4o mini achieved an accuracy rate of 65% (48/74) on the 2023 PNA examination, surpassing ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo. ChatGPT-4o mini outperformed medical candidates, while ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo had a more moderate performance. Conclusions: This study highlights the advancements and potential of ChatGPT models in medical education, emphasizing the need for careful implementation with teacher oversight and further research.
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 | 0.009 | 0.065 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".