Performance of ChatGPT-4 on Taiwanese Traditional Chinese Medicine Licensing Examinations: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), notably ChatGPT, into medical education, has shown promising results in various medical fields. Nevertheless, its efficacy in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) examinations remains understudied. Objective: This study aims to (1) assess the performance of ChatGPT on the TCM licensing examination in Taiwan and (2) evaluate the model's explainability in answering TCM-related questions to determine its suitability as a TCM learning tool. Methods: We used the GPT-4 model to respond to 480 questions from the 2022 TCM licensing examination. This study compared the performance of the model against that of licensed TCM doctors using 2 approaches, namely direct answer selection and provision of explanations before answer selection. The accuracy and consistency of AI-generated responses were analyzed. Moreover, a breakdown of question characteristics was performed based on the cognitive level, depth of knowledge, types of questions, vignette style, and polarity of questions. Results: ChatGPT achieved an overall accuracy of 43.9%, which was lower than that of 2 human participants (70% and 78.4%). The analysis did not reveal a significant correlation between the accuracy of the model and the characteristics of the questions. An in-depth examination indicated that errors predominantly resulted from a misunderstanding of TCM concepts (55.3%), emphasizing the limitations of the model with regard to its TCM knowledge base and reasoning capability. Conclusions: Although ChatGPT shows promise as an educational tool, its current performance on TCM licensing examinations is lacking. This highlights the need for enhancing AI models with specialized TCM training and suggests a cautious approach to utilizing AI for TCM education. Future research should focus on model improvement and the development of tailored educational applications to support TCM learning.
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 | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".