ABSTRACT
Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable proficiency in clinical knowledge, encompassing diagnostic medicine, and have been tested on questions related to medical licensing examinations. ChatGPT has recently gained popularity because of its ability to generate human-like responses when presented with exam questions. It has been tested on multiple undergraduate and subspecialty exams and the results have been mixed. We aim to test ChatGPT on questions mirroring the standards of the FCPS exam, the highest medical qualification in Pakistan.
We used 111 randomly chosen MCQs of internal medicine of FCPS level in the form of a text prompt, thrice on 3 consecutive days. The average of the three answers was taken as the final response. The responses were recorded and compared to the answers given by subject experts. Agreement between the two was assessed using the Chi-square test and Cohen’s Kappa with 0.75 Kappa as an acceptable agreement. Univariate regression analysis was done for the effect of subspeciality, word count, and case scenarios in the success of ChatGPT.. Post-risk stratification chi-square and kappa statistics were applied.
ChatGPT 4.0 scored 73% (69%-74%). Although close to the passing criteria, it could not clear the FCPS exam. Question characteristics and subspecialties did not affect the ChatGPT responses statistically. ChatGPT shows a high concordance between its responses indicating sound knowledge and a high reliability.
This study’s findings underline the necessity for caution in over-reliance on AI for critical clinical decisions without human oversight. Creating specialized models tailored for medical education could provide a viable solution to this problem.
Author Summary Artificial intelligence is the future of the world. Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2014, it become one of the most widely used application for people in all fields of life. A wave of excitement was felt among the medical community when the chatbot was announced to have cleared the USMLE exams. Here, we have tested ChatGPT on MCQs mirroring the standard of FCPS exam questions. The FCPS is the highest medical qualification in Pakistan. We found that with a vast data base, ChatGPT could not clear the exam in all of the three attempts taken by it. ChatGPT, however, scored a near passing score indicating a relatively sound knowledge.
We found ChatGPT to be a consistent LLM for complex medical scenarios faced by doctors in their daily lives irrespective of the subspecialty, length or word count of the questions. Although ChatGPT did not pass the FCPS exam, its answers displayed a high level of consistency, indicating a solid understanding of internal medicine. This demonstrates the potential of AI to support and improve medical education and healthcare services in near future.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study did not involve human interaction, so IRB approval was not required.
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.
Not Applicable
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).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Footnotes
HQ drafted the manuscript, collected the data, and statistically analyzed it.
AA and MI critically evaluated the manuscript.
RS conceptualized the study design and critically revised the manuscript.
Data Availability
Data will be available from the principal investigator (rehman.siddiqui{at}gamil.com) on reasonable request.
