Abstract
Importance Studies show that ChatGPT, a general purpose large language model chatbot, could pass the multiple-choice US Medical Licensing Exams, but the model’s performance on open-ended clinical reasoning is unknown.
Objective To determine if ChatGPT is capable of consistently meeting the passing threshold on free-response, case-based clinical reasoning assessments.
Design Fourteen multi-part cases were selected from clinical reasoning exams administered to pre-clerkship medical students between 2019 and 2022. For each case, the questions were run through ChatGPT twice and responses were recorded. Two clinician educators independently graded each run according to a standardized grading rubric. To further assess the degree of variation in ChatGPT’s performance, we repeated the analysis on a single high-complexity case 20 times.
Setting A single US medical school
Participants ChatGPT
Main Outcomes and Measures Passing rate of ChatGPT’s scored responses and the range in model performance across multiple run throughs of a single case.
Results 12 out of the 28 ChatGPT exam responses achieved a passing score (43%) with a mean score of 69% (95% CI: 65% to 73%) compared to the established passing threshold of 70%. When given the same case 20 separate times, ChatGPT’s performance on that case varied with scores ranging from 56% to 81%.
Conclusions and Relevance ChatGPT’s ability to achieve a passing performance in nearly half of the cases analyzed demonstrates the need to revise clinical reasoning assessments and incorporate artificial intelligence (AI)-related topics into medical curricula and practice.
Competing Interest Statement
Dr. Hom reported receiving grant funding from the NIH/Undiagnosed Diseases Network (5U01HG010218-04). Dr. Hom reported receiving consulting fees from MORE Health, Inc. Dr. Chen reported receiving grants from the NIH/National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network (UG1DA015815-CTN-0136), Stanford Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging- Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence Partnership Grant, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation - Covid-19 Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (20211260), Google Inc (in a research collaboration to leverage health data to predict clinical outcomes), and the American Heart Association - Strategically Focused Research Network - Diversity in Clinical Trials. Dr. Chen reported receiving consulting fees from Sutton Pierce and Younker Hyde MacFarlane PLLC and being a co-founder of Reaction Explorer LLC, a company that develops and licenses organic chemistry education software using rule-based artificial intelligence technology.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
