Evaluating ChatGPT-4 in the development of family medicine residency examinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creating high-quality medical examinations is challenging due to time, cost, and training requirements. This study evaluates the use of ChatGPT 4.0 (ChatGPT-4) in generating medical exam questions for postgraduate family medicine (FM) trainees. Develop a standardized method for postgraduate multiple-choice medical exam question creation using ChatGPT-4 and compare the effectiveness of large language model (LLM) generated questions to those created by human experts. Eight academic FM physicians rated multiple-choice questions (MCQs) generated by humans and ChatGPT-4 across four categories: 1) human-generated, 2) ChatGPT-4 cloned, 3) ChatGPT-4 novel, and 4) ChatGPT-4 generated questions edited by a human expert. Raters scored each question on 17 quality domains. Quality scores were compared using linear mixed effect models. ChatGPT-4 and human-generated questions were rated as high quality, addressing higher-order thinking. Human-generated questions were less likely to be perceived as artificial intelligence (AI) generated, compared to ChatGPT-4 generated questions. For several quality domains ChatGPT-4 was non-inferior (at a 10% margin), but not superior, to human-generated questions. ChatGPT-4 can create medical exam questions that are high quality, and with respect to certain quality domains, non-inferior to those developed by human experts. LLMs can assist in generating and appraising educational content, leading to potential cost and time savings.
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 | 0.038 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".