4.3 Article

Assessing the performance of ChatGPT in bioethics: a large language model's moral compass in medicine

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jme-2023-109366

关键词

Ethics- Medical; Decision Making; Education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5 in answering bioethics questions and found that it had an accuracy of 59.6%. It performed well on topics related to death and patient-physician relationships, but poorly on questions about informed consent. Certain specialties and bioethical categories were underrepresented, and the errors made were mainly content and application errors.
Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) has been a growing point of interest in medical education yet has not been assessed in the field of bioethics. This study evaluated the accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5 (April 2023 version) in answering text-based, multiple choice bioethics questions at the level of US third-year and fourth-year medical students. A total of 114 bioethical questions were identified from the widely utilised question banks UWorld and AMBOSS. Accuracy, bioethical categories, difficulty levels, specialty data, error analysis and character count were analysed. We found that ChatGPT had an accuracy of 59.6%, with greater accuracy in topics surrounding death and patient-physician relationships and performed poorly on questions pertaining to informed consent. Of all the specialties, it performed best in paediatrics. Yet, certain specialties and bioethical categories were under-represented. Among the errors made, it tended towards content errors and application errors. There were no significant associations between character count and accuracy. Nevertheless, this investigation contributes to the ongoing dialogue on artificial intelligence's (AI) role in healthcare and medical education, advocating for further research to fully understand AI systems' capabilities and constraints in the nuanced field of medical bioethics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据