The review concludes GPT-4 is not yet suitable for use in medical education despite its potential, due to insufficient accuracy, inconsistent performance, and country-specific policy and knowledge challenges¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2027: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The authors argue that GPT-4's knowledge is not entirely accurate (only 2 tests exceeded 90% accuracy), its outputs remain random (52% on the Korean examination despite 81% overall), and it struggles with localized medical policies, ethics, and traditional medicine knowledge. → Mingxin Liu 2024

Evidence¶

Mingxin Liu 2024¶

Mingxin Liu, Tsuyoshi Okuhara, XinYi Chang, Ritsuko Shirabe, Yuriko Nishiie, Hiroko Okada, Takahiro Kiuchi. (2024). Performance of ChatGPT Across Different Versions in Medical Licensing Examinations Worldwide: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.2196/60807

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Authors' interpretive conclusion from the discussion: GPT-4 exceeded 90% accuracy in only 2 tests, scored 52% on the Korean examination, failed one Japanese test at 67%, and gave detailed, logically sound explanations for incorrect answers that students may believe and memorize.

"However, because the knowledge of ChatGPT is not entirely accurate and its performance can be inconsistent, and because of the challenges posed by differing medical policies and knowledge across countries, we believe that GPT-4 is not yet suitable for use in medical education."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• GPT-4 performed significantly better on examinations from English-speaking countries (86% vs 80%, P=.02), while GPT-3.5 showed no such difference (P=.72) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Despite generally accurate feedback, the LLM's scoring explanations could be unpredictable and prone to logical inconsistency, failing to award points even when citing the correct rubric directive — related