PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - van Uhm, J.
AU  - van Haelst, M.M.
AU  - Jansen, P.R.
TI  - AI-Powered Test Question Generation in Medical Education: The DailyMed Approach
AID  - 10.1101/2024.11.11.24317087
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.11.11.24317087
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/11/2024.11.11.24317087.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/11/2024.11.11.24317087.full
AB  - Introduction Large language models (LLMs) presents opportunities to improve the efficiency and quality of tools in medical education, such as the generation of multiple-choice questions (MCQs). However, ensuring that these questions are clinically relevant, accurate, and easily accesible and reusable remains challenging. Here, we developed DailyMed, an online automated pipeline using LLMs to generate high-quality medical MCQs.Methods Our DailyMed pipeline involves several key steps: 1) topic generation, 2) question creation, 3) validation using Semantic Scholar, 4) difficulty grading, 5) iterative improvement of simpler questions, and 6) final human review. The Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting technique was applied to enhance LLM reasoning. Three state-of the art LLMs—OpenBioLLM-70B, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet—were evaluated within the area of clinical genetics, and the generated questions were rated by clinical experts for validity, clarity, originality, relevance, and difficulty.Results GPT-4o produced the highest-rated questions, excelling in validity, originality, clarity, and relevance. Although OpenBioLLM was more cost-efficient, it consistently scored lower in all categories. GPT-4o also achieved the greatest topic diversity (89.8%), followed by Claude Sonnet (86.9%) and OpenBioLLM (80.0%). In terms of cost and performance, GPT-4o was the most efficient model, with an average cost of $0.51 per quiz and a runtime of 16 seconds per question.Conclusions Our pipeline provides a scalable, effective and online-accessible solution for generating diverse, clinically relevant MCQs. GPT-4o demonstrated the highest overall performance, making it the preferred model for this task, while OpenBioLLM offers a cost-effective alternative.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced are available online at dailymed.ai/paper & github.com/Uhm-J/dailymed https://github.com/Uhm-J/dailymed https://dailymed.ai/paper