Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract 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.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Daniel Stribling
Yuxing Xia
Maha K Amer
Scientific Reports
University of Florida
University of Florida Health
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Stribling et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/68e7541bb6db6435876cbd9b — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-55568-7
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: