Author
Listed:
- Olena Bolgova
(Alfaisal University, Saudi Arabia)
- Inna Shypilova
(St Mathews University, Cayman Islands)
- Larysa Sankova
(American University of the Caribbean, Sint Maarten)
- Volodymyr Mavrych
(Alfaisal University, Saudi Arabia)
Abstract
The burgeoning interest in leveraging ChatGPT within the medical field underscores the necessity for a comprehensive understanding of its capabilities and limitations, particularly in the context of medical assessments and examinations. The model possesses a unique aptitude for addressing queries related to medical student exams, thereby serving as an invaluable resource for academic support. Its advanced natural language processing capabilities empower it to comprehend the intricacies of medical terminology, enabling it to provide nuanced and contextually relevant responses. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate ChatGPT performance in answering Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) related to the different topics in Gross Anatomy course for medical students. The research conducted for this study was focused on a comprehensive examination of ChatGPT (GPT-3.5) capabilities in answering 325 MCQs designed in USMLE style, arranged in 7 different sets related to specific topics. These questions were selected from Gross Anatomy course exam database for medical students and reviewed by three independent experts. The results of 5 successive attempts to answer each set of questions by Chat-GPT were evaluated based on accuracy, relevance, and comprehensiveness. The ChatGPT provided accurate answers to 44.1% ± 8.2% of questions. Accordingly, to our data, ChatGPT is answering much better on MCQs from Back material (58.4%), following Head and Neck (48.8%) and Pelvis (45.6%), and performing not so well in questions of Thorax (37.6%) and Upper limb (36.4%). ChatGPT is struggling in answering questions about blood supply and innervation of the specific organs. ChatGPT stands out as a promising and interactive educational tool, particularly for students engaged in the study of anatomy. Its distinctive ability to not only provide informative responses but also engage students in a conversational manner is highly commendable. This quality has the potential to enhance student engagement and foster curiosity, creating a dynamic learning experience. However, it’s crucial to acknowledge that ChatGPT’s current level of comprehension and interpretative abilities may not meet the demanding standards required for practical applications in the medical education domain. Its performance in challenging examinations like medical college exams and health licensing exams might need to catch up to expectations.
Suggested Citation
Olena Bolgova & Inna Shypilova & Larysa Sankova & Volodymyr Mavrych, 2023.
"How Well Did ChatGPT Perform in Answering Questions on Different Topics in Gross Anatomy?,"
European Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, European Open Science, vol. 5(6), pages 94-100, November.
Handle:
RePEc:epw:ejmed0:v:5:y:2023:i:6:id:41989
DOI: 10.24018/ejmed.2023.5.6.1989
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:epw:ejmed0:v:5:y:2023:i:6:id:41989. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://eu-opensci.org/index.php/ejmed .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.