Search

Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have potential applications in medical education such as helping students study for their licensing exams by discussing unclear questions with them. However, they require evaluation on these complex tasks. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how well publicly accessible LLMs performed on simulated UK medical board exam questions. 423 board-style questions from 9 UK exams (MRCS, MRCP, etc.) were answered by seven LLMs (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Bard, Perplexity, Claude, Bing, Claude Instant). There were 406 multiple-choice, 13 true/false, and 4 "choose N" questions covering topics in surgery, pediatrics, and other disciplines. The accuracy of the output was graded. Statistics were used to analyze differences among LLMs. Leaked questions were excluded from the primary analysis. ChatGPT 4.0 scored (78.2%), Bing (67.2%), Claude (64.4%), and Claude Instant (62.9%). Perplexity scored the lowest (56.1%). Scores differed significantly between LLMs overall (p < 0.001) and in pairwise comparisons. All LLMs scored higher on multiple-choice vs true/false or "choose N" questions. LLMs demonstrated limitations in answering certain questions, indicating refinements needed before primary reliance in medical education. However, their expanding capabilities suggest a potential to improve training if thoughtfully implemented. Further research should explore specialty specific LLMs and optimal integration into medical curricula. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For common diseases such as lung cancer, patients often use the internet to obtain medical information. As a result of advances in artificial intelligence and large language models such as ChatGPT, patients and health professionals use these tools to obtain medical information. The aim of this study was to evaluate the readability of ChatGPT-generated responses with different readability scales in the context of lung cancer. The most common questions in the lung cancer section of Medscape® were reviewed, and questions on the definition, etiology, risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of lung cancer (both NSCLC and SCLC) were selected. A set of 80 questions were asked 10 times to ChatGPT via the OpenAI API. ChatGPT's responses were tested using various readability formulas. The mean Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning FOG Scale, SMOG Index, Automated Readability Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Linsear Write Formula, Dale-Chall Readability Score, and Spache Readability Formula scores are at a moderate level (mean and standard deviation: 40.52 ± 9.81, 12.56 ± 1.66, 13.63 ± 1.54, 14.61 ± 1.45, 15.04 ± 1.97, 14.24 ± 1.90, 11.96 ± 2.55, 10.03 ± 0.63 and 5.93 ± 0.50, respectively). The readability levels of the answers generated by ChatGPT are "collage" and above and are difficult to read. Perhaps in the near future, the ChatGPT can be programmed to produce responses that are appropriate for people of different educational and age groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People increasingly use large language model (LLM)-based conversational agents to obtain information. However, the information these models provide is not always factually accurate. Thus, it is critical to understand what helps users adequately assess the credibility of the provided information. Here, we report the results of two preregistered experiments in which participants rated the credibility of accurate versus partially inaccurate information ostensibly provided by a dynamic text-based LLM-powered agent, a voice-based agent, or a static text-based online encyclopedia. We found that people were better at detecting inaccuracies when identical information was provided as static text compared to both types of conversational agents, regardless of whether information search applications were branded (ChatGPT, Alexa, and Wikipedia) or unbranded. Mediation analysis overall corroborated the interpretation that a conversational nature poses a threat to adequate credibility judgments. Our research highlights the importance of presentation mode when dealing with misinformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, Google's Bard, and Anthropic's Claude, showcase remarkable natural language processing capabilities. Evaluating their proficiency in specialized domains such as neurophysiology is crucial in understanding their utility in research, education, and clinical applications. This study aims to assess and compare the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in answering neurophysiology questions in both English and Persian (Farsi) covering a range of topics and cognitive levels. Twenty questions covering four topics (general, sensory system, motor system, and integrative) and two cognitive levels (lower-order and higher-order) were posed to the LLMs. Physiologists scored the essay-style answers on a scale of 0–5 points. Statistical analysis compared the scores across different levels such as model, language, topic, and cognitive levels. Performing qualitative analysis identified reasoning gaps. In general, the models demonstrated good performance (mean score = 3.87/5), with no significant difference between language or cognitive levels. The performance was the strongest in the motor system (mean = 4.41) while the weakest was observed in integrative topics (mean = 3.35). Detailed qualitative analysis uncovered deficiencies in reasoning, discerning priorities, and knowledge integrating. This study offers valuable insights into LLMs' capabilities and limitations in the field of neurophysiology. The models demonstrate proficiency in general questions but face challenges in advanced reasoning and knowledge integration. Targeted training could address gaps in knowledge and causal reasoning. As LLMs evolve, rigorous domain-specific assessments will be crucial for evaluating advancements in their performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While there is data assessing the test performance of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, including the Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4.0 (GPT 4) chatbot (ChatGPT 4.0), there is scarce data on its diagnostic accuracy of clinical cases. We assessed the large language model (LLM), ChatGPT 4.0, on its ability to answer questions from the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 2, as well as its ability to generate a differential diagnosis based on corresponding clinical vignettes from published case reports. A total of 109 Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) practice questions were inputted into both ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.0, asking ChatGPT to pick the correct answer. Compared to its previous version, ChatGPT 3.5, we found improved accuracy of ChatGPT 4.0 when answering these questions, from 47.7 to 87.2% (p = 0.035) respectively. Utilizing the topics tested on Step 2 CK questions, we additionally found 63 corresponding published case report vignettes and asked ChatGPT 4.0 to come up with its top three differential diagnosis. ChatGPT 4.0 accurately created a shortlist of differential diagnoses in 74.6% of the 63 case reports (74.6%). We analyzed ChatGPT 4.0's confidence in its diagnosis by asking it to rank its top three differentials from most to least likely. Out of the 47 correct diagnoses, 33 were the first (70.2%) on the differential diagnosis list, 11 were second (23.4%), and three were third (6.4%). Our study shows the continued iterative improvement in ChatGPT's ability to answer standardized USMLE questions accurately and provides insights into ChatGPT's clinical diagnostic accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health equity and accessing Spanish kidney transplant information continues being a substantial challenge facing the Hispanic community. This study evaluated ChatGPT's capabilities in translating 54 English kidney transplant frequently asked questions (FAQs) into Spanish using two versions of the AI model, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0. The FAQs included 19 from Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), 15 from National Health Service (NHS), and 20 from National Kidney Foundation (NKF). Two native Spanish-speaking nephrologists, both of whom are of Mexican heritage, scored the translations for linguistic accuracy and cultural sensitivity tailored to Hispanics using a 1–5 rubric. The inter-rater reliability of the evaluators, measured by Cohen's Kappa, was 0.85. Overall linguistic accuracy was 4.89 ± 0.31 for GPT-3.5 versus 4.94 ± 0.23 for GPT-4.0 (non-significant p = 0.23). Both versions scored 4.96 ± 0.19 in cultural sensitivity (p = 1.00). By source, GPT-3.5 linguistic accuracy was 4.84 ± 0.37 (OPTN), 4.93 ± 0.26 (NHS), 4.90 ± 0.31 (NKF). GPT-4.0 scored 4.95 ± 0.23 (OPTN), 4.93 ± 0.26 (NHS), 4.95 ± 0.22 (NKF). For cultural sensitivity, GPT-3.5 scored 4.95 ± 0.23 (OPTN), 4.93 ± 0.26 (NHS), 5.00 ± 0.00 (NKF), while GPT-4.0 scored 5.00 ± 0.00 (OPTN), 5.00 ± 0.00 (NHS), 4.90 ± 0.31 (NKF). These high linguistic and cultural sensitivity scores demonstrate Chat GPT effectively translated the English FAQs into Spanish across systems. The findings suggest Chat GPT's potential to promote health equity by improving Spanish access to essential kidney transplant information. Additional research should evaluate its medical translation capabilities across diverse contexts/languages. These English-to-Spanish translations may increase access to vital transplant information for underserved Spanish-speaking Hispanic patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to transform our lives and work through the content they generate, known as AI-Generated Content (AIGC). To harness this transformation, we need to understand the limitations of LLMs. Here, we investigate the bias of AIGC produced by seven representative LLMs, including ChatGPT and LLaMA. We collect news articles from The New York Times and Reuters, both known for their dedication to provide unbiased news. We then apply each examined LLM to generate news content with headlines of these news articles as prompts, and evaluate the gender and racial biases of the AIGC produced by the LLM by comparing the AIGC and the original news articles. We further analyze the gender bias of each LLM under biased prompts by adding gender-biased messages to prompts constructed from these news headlines. Our study reveals that the AIGC produced by each examined LLM demonstrates substantial gender and racial biases. Moreover, the AIGC generated by each LLM exhibits notable discrimination against females and individuals of the Black race. Among the LLMs, the AIGC generated by ChatGPT demonstrates the lowest level of bias, and ChatGPT is the sole model capable of declining content generation when provided with biased prompts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The GPT-4 large language model (LLM) and ChatGPT chatbot have emerged as accessible and capable tools for generating English-language text in a variety of formats. GPT-4 has previously performed well when applied to questions from multiple standardized examinations. However, further evaluation of trustworthiness and accuracy of GPT-4 responses across various knowledge domains is essential before its use as a reference resource. Here, we assess GPT-4 performance on nine graduate-level examinations in the biomedical sciences (seven blinded), finding that GPT-4 scores exceed the student average in seven of nine cases and exceed all student scores for four exams. GPT-4 performed very well on fill-in-the-blank, short-answer, and essay questions, and correctly answered several questions on figures sourced from published manuscripts. Conversely, GPT-4 performed poorly on questions with figures containing simulated data and those requiring a hand-drawn answer. Two GPT-4 answer-sets were flagged as plagiarism based on answer similarity and some model responses included detailed hallucinations. In addition to assessing GPT-4 performance, we discuss patterns and limitations in GPT-4 capabilities with the goal of informing design of future academic examinations in the chatbot era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Matching the language or content of a message to the psychological profile of its recipient (known as "personalized persuasion") is widely considered to be one of the most effective messaging strategies. We demonstrate that the rapid advances in large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, could accelerate this influence by making personalized persuasion scalable. Across four studies (consisting of seven sub-studies; total N = 1788), we show that personalized messages crafted by ChatGPT exhibit significantly more influence than non-personalized messages. This was true across different domains of persuasion (e.g., marketing of consumer products, political appeals for climate action), psychological profiles (e.g., personality traits, political ideology, moral foundations), and when only providing the LLM with a single, short prompt naming or describing the targeted psychological dimension. Thus, our findings are among the first to demonstrate the potential for LLMs to automate, and thereby scale, the use of personalized persuasion in ways that enhance its effectiveness and efficiency. We discuss the implications for researchers, practitioners, and the general public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of publicly accessible artificial intelligence (AI) large language models such as ChatGPT has given rise to global conversations on the implications of AI capabilities. Emergent research on AI has challenged the assumption that creative potential is a uniquely human trait thus, there seems to be a disconnect between human perception versus what AI is objectively capable of creating. Here, we aimed to assess the creative potential of humans in comparison to AI. In the present study, human participants (N = 151) and GPT-4 provided responses for the Alternative Uses Task, Consequences Task, and Divergent Associations Task. We found that AI was robustly more creative along each divergent thinking measurement in comparison to the human counterparts. Specifically, when controlling for fluency of responses, AI was more original and elaborate. The present findings suggest that the current state of AI language models demonstrate higher creative potential than human respondents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of large language models (LLM) with remarkable performance such as ChatGPT and GPT-4, has led to an unprecedented uptake in the population. One of their most promising and studied applications concerns education due to their ability to understand and generate human-like text, creating a multitude of opportunities for enhancing educational practices and outcomes. The objective of this study is twofold: to assess the accuracy of ChatGPT/GPT-4 in answering rheumatology questions from the access exam to specialized medical training in Spain (MIR), and to evaluate the medical reasoning followed by these LLM to answer those questions. A dataset, RheumaMIR, of 145 rheumatology-related questions, extracted from the exams held between 2010 and 2023, was created for that purpose, used as a prompt for the LLM, and was publicly distributed. Six rheumatologists with clinical and teaching experience evaluated the clinical reasoning of the chatbots using a 5-point Likert scale and their degree of agreement was analyzed. The association between variables that could influence the models' accuracy (i.e., year of the exam question, disease addressed, type of question and genre) was studied. ChatGPT demonstrated a high level of performance in both accuracy, 66.43%, and clinical reasoning, median (Q1–Q3), 4.5 (2.33–4.67). However, GPT-4 showed better performance with an accuracy score of 93.71% and a median clinical reasoning value of 4.67 (4.5–4.83). These findings suggest that LLM may serve as valuable tools in rheumatology education, aiding in exam preparation and supplementing traditional teaching methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study aimed to evaluate the performance of two Large Language Models (LLMs): ChatGPT (based on GPT-3.5) and GPT-4 with two temperature parameter values, on the Polish Medical Final Examination (MFE). The models were tested on three editions of the MFE from: Spring 2022, Autumn 2022, and Spring 2023 in two language versions—English and Polish. The accuracies of both models were compared and the relationships between the correctness of answers with the answer's metrics were investigated. The study demonstrated that GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3.5 in all three examinations regardless of the language used. GPT-4 achieved mean accuracies of 79.7% for both Polish and English versions, passing all MFE versions. GPT-3.5 had mean accuracies of 54.8% for Polish and 60.3% for English, passing none and 2 of 3 Polish versions for temperature parameter equal to 0 and 1 respectively while passing all English versions regardless of the temperature parameter value. GPT-4 score was mostly lower than the average score of a medical student. There was a statistically significant correlation between the correctness of the answers and the index of difficulty for both models. The overall accuracy of both models was still suboptimal and worse than the average for medical students. This emphasizes the need for further improvements in LLMs before they can be reliably deployed in medical settings. These findings suggest an increasing potential for the usage of LLMs in terms of medical education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ChatGPT is a large language model trained on text corpora and reinforced with human supervision. Because ChatGPT can provide human-like responses to complex questions, it could become an easily accessible source of medical advice for patients. However, its ability to answer medical questions appropriately and equitably remains unknown. We presented ChatGPT with 96 advice-seeking vignettes that varied across clinical contexts, medical histories, and social characteristics. We analyzed responses for clinical appropriateness by concordance with guidelines, recommendation type, and consideration of social factors. Ninety-three (97%) responses were appropriate and did not explicitly violate clinical guidelines. Recommendations in response to advice-seeking questions were completely absent (N = 34, 35%), general (N = 18, 18%), or specific (N = 44, 46%). 53 (55%) explicitly considered social factors like race or insurance status, which in some cases changed clinical recommendations. ChatGPT consistently provided background information in response to medical questions but did not reliably offer appropriate and personalized medical advice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) has been a subject of performance study for artificial intelligence (AI) models. However, their performance on questions involving USMLE soft skills remains unexplored. This study aimed to evaluate ChatGPT and GPT-4 on USMLE questions involving communication skills, ethics, empathy, and professionalism. We used 80 USMLE-style questions involving soft skills, taken from the USMLE website and the AMBOSS question bank. A follow-up query was used to assess the models' consistency. The performance of the AI models was compared to that of previous AMBOSS users. GPT-4 outperformed ChatGPT, correctly answering 90% compared to ChatGPT's 62.5%. GPT-4 showed more confidence, not revising any responses, while ChatGPT modified its original answers 82.5% of the time. The performance of GPT-4 was higher than that of AMBOSS's past users. Both AI models, notably GPT-4, showed capacity for empathy, indicating AI's potential to meet the complex interpersonal, ethical, and professional demands intrinsic to the practice of medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Computational language models (LMs), most notably exemplified by the widespread success of OpenAI's ChatGPT chatbot, show impressive performance on a wide range of linguistic tasks, thus providing cognitive science and linguistics with a computational working model to empirically study different aspects of human language. Here, we use LMs to test the hypothesis that languages with more speakers tend to be easier to learn. In two experiments, we train several LMs—ranging from very simple n-gram models to state-of-the-art deep neural networks—on written cross-linguistic corpus data covering 1293 different languages and statistically estimate learning difficulty. Using a variety of quantitative methods and machine learning techniques to account for phylogenetic relatedness and geographical proximity of languages, we show that there is robust evidence for a relationship between learning difficulty and speaker population size. However, contrary to expectations derived from previous research, our results suggest that languages with more speakers tend to be harder to learn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of large language models has led to the development of powerful tools such as ChatGPT that can produce text indistinguishable from human-generated work. With the increasing accessibility of such technology, students across the globe may utilize it to help with their school work—a possibility that has sparked ample discussion on the integrity of student evaluation processes in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). To date, it is unclear how such tools perform compared to students on university-level courses across various disciplines. Further, students' perspectives regarding the use of such tools in school work, and educators' perspectives on treating their use as plagiarism, remain unknown. Here, we compare the performance of the state-of-the-art tool, ChatGPT, against that of students on 32 university-level courses. We also assess the degree to which its use can be detected by two classifiers designed specifically for this purpose. Additionally, we conduct a global survey across five countries, as well as a more in-depth survey at the authors' institution, to discern students' and educators' perceptions of ChatGPT's use in school work. We find that ChatGPT's performance is comparable, if not superior, to that of students in a multitude of courses. Moreover, current AI-text classifiers cannot reliably detect ChatGPT's use in school work, due to both their propensity to classify human-written answers as AI-generated, as well as the relative ease with which AI-generated text can be edited to evade detection. Finally, there seems to be an emerging consensus among students to use the tool, and among educators to treat its use as plagiarism. Our findings offer insights that could guide policy discussions addressing the integration of artificial intelligence into educational frameworks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although chatbots such as ChatGPT can facilitate cost-effective text generation and editing, factually incorrect responses (hallucinations) limit their utility. This study evaluates one particular type of hallucination: fabricated bibliographic citations that do not represent actual scholarly works. We used ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 to produce short literature reviews on 42 multidisciplinary topics, compiling data on the 636 bibliographic citations (references) found in the 84 papers. We then searched multiple databases and websites to determine the prevalence of fabricated citations, to identify errors in the citations to non-fabricated papers, and to evaluate adherence to APA citation format. Within this set of documents, 55% of the GPT-3.5 citations but just 18% of the GPT-4 citations are fabricated. Likewise, 43% of the real (non-fabricated) GPT-3.5 citations but just 24% of the real GPT-4 citations include substantive citation errors. Although GPT-4 is a major improvement over GPT-3.5, problems remain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The field of gastroenterology (GI) is constantly evolving. It is essential to pinpoint the most pressing and important research questions. To evaluate the potential of chatGPT for identifying research priorities in GI and provide a starting point for further investigation. We queried chatGPT on four key topics in GI: inflammatory bowel disease, microbiome, Artificial Intelligence in GI, and advanced endoscopy in GI. A panel of experienced gastroenterologists separately reviewed and rated the generated research questions on a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the most important and relevant to current research in GI. chatGPT generated relevant and clear research questions. Yet, the questions were not considered original by the panel of gastroenterologists. On average, the questions were rated 3.6 ± 1.4, with inter-rater reliability ranging from 0.80 to 0.98 (p < 0.001). The mean grades for relevance, clarity, specificity, and originality were 4.9 ± 0.1, 4.6 ± 0.4, 3.1 ± 0.2, 1.5 ± 0.4, respectively. Our study suggests that Large Language Models (LLMs) may be a useful tool for identifying research priorities in the field of GI, but more work is needed to improve the novelty of the generated research questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]