ChatGPT versus human in generating medical graduate exam multiple choice questions-A multinational prospective study (Hong Kong SAR, Singapore, Ireland, and the United Kingdom)

被引:46
作者
Cheung, Billy Ho Hung [1 ]
Lau, Gary Kui Kai [1 ]
Wong, Gordon Tin Chun [1 ]
Lee, Elaine Yuen Phin [1 ]
Kulkarni, Dhananjay [2 ]
Seow, Choon Sheong [3 ]
Wong, Ruby [4 ]
Co, Michael Tiong-Hong [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hong Kong, LKS Fac Med, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[2] Univ Edinburgh, Dept Surg, Edinburgh, Scotland
[3] Natl Univ Canc Inst Singapore, Dept Surg, Singapore, Singapore
[4] Univ Galway, Dept Surg, Galway, Ireland
来源
PLOS ONE | 2023年 / 18卷 / 08期
基金
英国科研创新办公室;
关键词
EDUCATION; QUALITY; DISTRACTORS; TESTS;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0290691
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
IntroductionLarge language models, in particular ChatGPT, have showcased remarkable language processing capabilities. Given the substantial workload of university medical staff, this study aims to assess the quality of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) produced by ChatGPT for use in graduate medical examinations, compared to questions written by university professoriate staffs based on standard medical textbooks.Methods50 MCQs were generated by ChatGPT with reference to two standard undergraduate medical textbooks (Harrison's, and Bailey & Love's). Another 50 MCQs were drafted by two university professoriate staff using the same medical textbooks. All 100 MCQ were individually numbered, randomized and sent to five independent international assessors for MCQ quality assessment using a standardized assessment score on five assessment domains, namely, appropriateness of the question, clarity and specificity, relevance, discriminative power of alternatives, and suitability for medical graduate examination.ResultsThe total time required for ChatGPT to create the 50 questions was 20 minutes 25 seconds, while it took two human examiners a total of 211 minutes 33 seconds to draft the 50 questions. When a comparison of the mean score was made between the questions constructed by A.I. with those drafted by humans, only in the relevance domain that the A.I. was inferior to humans (A.I.: 7.56 +/- 0.94 vs human: 7.88 +/- 0.52; p = 0.04). There was no significant difference in question quality between questions drafted by A.I. versus humans, in the total assessment score as well as in other domains. Questions generated by A.I. yielded a wider range of scores, while those created by humans were consistent and within a narrower range.ConclusionChatGPT has the potential to generate comparable-quality MCQs for medical graduate examinations within a significantly shorter time.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 34 条
  • [1] Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives
    Adams, Nancy E.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 2015, 103 (03) : 152 - 153
  • [2] AI O, ChatGPT: Optimizing Language Models for Dialogue
  • [3] Artificial Hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in Scientific Writing
    Alkaissi, Hussam
    McFarlane, Samy I.
    [J]. CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2023, 15 (02)
  • [4] Brame C.J., 2013, WRITING GOOD MULTIPL
  • [5] Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Review
    Chen, Lijia
    Chen, Pingping
    Lin, Zhijian
    [J]. IEEE ACCESS, 2020, 8 (08): : 75264 - 75278
  • [6] Written-Based Progress Testing: A Scoping Review
    Dion, Vincent
    St-Onge, Christina
    Bartman, Ilona
    Touchie, Claire
    Pugh, Debra
    [J]. ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2022, 97 (05) : 747 - 757
  • [7] Medical education - Assessment in medical education
    Epstein, Ronald M.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2007, 356 (04) : 387 - 396
  • [8] Developing, Analyzing, and Using Distractors for Multiple-Choice Tests in Education: A Comprehensive Review
    Gierl, Mark J.
    Bulut, Okan
    Guo, Qi
    Zhang, Xinxin
    [J]. REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 2017, 87 (06) : 1082 - 1116
  • [9] A Brief History of Artificial Intelligence: On the Past, Present, and Future of Artificial Intelligence
    Haenlein, Michael
    Kaplan, Andreas
    [J]. CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 2019, 61 (04) : 5 - 14
  • [10] Haladyna, 2004, DEV VALIDATING MULTI