Assessing ChatGPT 4.0’s Capabilities in the United Kingdom Medical Licensing Examination (UKMLA): A Robust Categorical Analysis
Résumé fourni par la source
Advances in the various applications of artificial intelligence will have important implications for medical training and practice. The advances in ChatGPT-4 alongside the introduction of the medical licensing assessment (MLA) provide an opportunity to compare GPT-4's medical competence against the expected level of a United Kingdom junior doctor and discuss its potential in clinical practice. Using 191 freely available questions in MLA style, we assessed GPT-4's accuracy with and without offering multiple-choice options. We compared single and multi-step questions, which targeted different points in the clinical process, from diagnosis to management. A chi-squared test was used to assess statistical significance. GPT-4 scored 86.3% and 89.6% in papers one-and-two respectively. Without the multiple-choice options, GPT's performance was 61.5% and 74.7% in papers one-and-two respectively. There was no significant difference between single and multistep questions, but GPT-4 answered 'management' questions significantly worse than 'diagnosis' questions with no multiple-choice options (p = 0.015). GPT-4's accuracy across categories and question structures suggest that LLMs are competently able to process clinical scenarios but remain incapable of understanding these clinical scenarios. Large-Language-Models incorporated into practice alongside a trained practitioner may balance risk and benefit as the necessary robust testing on evolving tools is conducted.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Assessing ChatGPT 4.0’s Capabilities in the United Kingdom Medical Licensing Examination (UKMLA): A Robust Categorical Analysis
- Date Crossref
- 15/04/2025
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.