Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare performance of ChatGPT (GPT-3.5), ChatGPT (GPT-4), Claude2, Llama2-7b, and Llama2-13b on 219 multiple-choice questions focusing on critical care pharmacotherapy. To further assess the ability of engineering LLMs to improve reasoning abilities and performance, we examined responses with a zero-shot Chain-of-Thought (CoT) approach, CoT prompting, and a custom built GPT (PharmacyGPT). A 219 multiple-choice questions focused on critical care pharmacotherapy topics used in Doctor of Pharmacy curricula from two accredited colleges of pharmacy was compiled for this study. A total of five LLMs were evaluated: ChatGPT (GPT-3.5), ChatGPT (GPT-4), Claude2, Llama2-7b, and Llama2-13b. The primary outcome was response accuracy. Of the five LLMs tested, GPT-4 showed the highest average accuracy rate at 71.6%. A larger variance indicates lower consistency and reduced confidence in its answers. Llama2-13b had the lowest variance (0.070) of all the LLMs, but performed with an accuracy of 41.5%. Following analaysis of overall accuracy, performance on knowledge- vs. skill-based questions were assessed. All five LLMs demonstrated higher accuracy on knowledge-based questions compared to skill-based questions. GPT-4 had the highest accuracy for knowledge- and skill-based questions, with an accuracy of 87% and 67%, respectively. Response accuracy from LLMs in the domain of clinical pharmacy can be improved by using prompt engineering techniques.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Funding through Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality for Drs. Sikora, Li, and Liu was provided through R21HS028485 and R01HS029009.
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I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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
Footnotes
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest.
Funding: Funding: Funding through Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality for Drs. Sikora, Most, Li, and Liu was provided through R21HS028485 and R01HS029009.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
