Search

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]

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]