Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Performance of ChatGPT, Bard, Claude, and Bing on the Peruvian National Licensing Medical Examination: a cross-sectional study

  • Betzy Clariza Torres-Zegarra
    ,
  • Wagner Rios-Garcia
    ,
  • Alvaro Micael Ñaña-Cordova
    ,
  • Karen Fatima Arteaga-Cisneros
    ,
  • Xiomara Cristina Benavente Chalco
    ,
  • Marina Atena Bustamante Ordoñez
  • Universidad Científica del Sur
    ,
  • Universidad Nacional San Luis Gonzaga de Ica
    ,
  • Academic Department
    ,
  • Universidad Nacional de Cajamarca
    ,
  • docencia y atención especializada en epilepsia
    ,
Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Open access

Publication Information

Output type

Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions (Volume 20)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 2023

Publication status

Published - 2023

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 85177454993
  • PubMed: 37981579

Abstract

Purpose: We aimed to describe the performance and evaluate the educational value of justifications provided by artificial intelligence chatbots, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Bard, Claude, and Bing, on the Peruvian National Medical Licensing Examination (P-NLME). Methods: This was a cross-sectional analytical study. On July 25, 2023, each multiple-choice question (MCQ) from the P-NLME was entered into each chatbot (GPT-3, GPT-4, Bing, Bard, and Claude) 3 times. Then, 4 medical educators categorized the MCQs in terms of medical area, item type, and whether the MCQ required Peru-specific knowledge. They assessed the educational value of the justifications from the 2 top performers (GPT-4 and Bing). Results: GPT-4 scored 86.7% and Bing scored 82.2%, followed by Bard and Claude, and the historical performance of Peruvian examinees was 55%. Among the factors associated with correct answers, only MCQs that required Peru-specific knowledge had lower odds (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.09–0.61), whereas the remaining factors showed no associations. In assessing the educational value of justifications provided by GPT-4 and Bing, neither showed any significant differences in certainty, usefulness, or potential use in the classroom. Conclusion: Among chatbots, GPT-4 and Bing were the top performers, with Bing performing better at Peru-specific MCQs. Moreover, the educational value of justifications provided by the GPT-4 and Bing could be deemed appropriate. However, it is essential to start addressing the educational value of these chatbots, rather than merely their performance on examinations.