A comparative analysis of the performance of chatGPT4, Gemini and Claude for the Polish Medical Final Diploma Exam and Medical-Dental Verification Exam - Wójcik, Dorota; Adamiak, Ola; Czerepak, Gabriela; Tokarczuk, Oskar; Szalewski, Leszek (medRxiv, 2024)
In the realm of medical education, the utility of chatbots is being explored with growing interest. One pertinent area of investigation is the performance of these models on standardized medical examinations, which are crucial for certifying the knowledge and readiness of healthcare professionals. In Poland, dental and medical students have to pass crucial exams known as LDEK (Medical-Dental Final Examination) and LEK (Medical Final Examination) exams respectively. The primary objective of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of chatbots: ChatGPT-4, Gemini and Claude to evaluate their accuracy in answering exam questions of the LDEK and the Medical-Dental Verification Examination (LDEW), using queries in both English and Polish. The analysis of Model 2, which compared chatbots within question groups, showed that the chatbot Claude achieved the highest probability of accuracy for all question groups except the area of prosthetic dentistry compared to ChatGPT-4 and Gemini. In addition, the probability of a correct answer to questions in the field of integrated medicine is higher than in the field of dentistry for all chatbots in both prompt languages. Our results demonstrate that Claude achieved the highest accuracy in all areas analysed and outperformed other chatbots. This suggests that Claude has significant potential to support the medical education of dental students. This study showed that the performance of chatbots varied depending on the prompt language and the specific field. This highlights the importance of considering language and specialty when selecting a chatbot for educational purposes.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.Yesdata will be awailable at Mendeley repository