Abstract:Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have demonstrated the ability to pass standardized exams. These models are not trained for a specific task, but instead trained to predict sequences of text from large corpora of documents sourced from the internet. It has been shown that even models trained on this general task can pass exams in a variety of domain-specific fields, including the United States Medical Licensing Examination. We asked if large language models would perform as well on a much narrower subdomain tests designed for medical specialists. Furthermore, we wanted to better understand how progressive generations of GPT (generative pre-trained transformer) models may be evolving in the completeness and sophistication of their responses even while generational training remains general. In this study, we evaluated the performance of two versions of GPT (GPT 3 and 4) on their ability to pass the certification exam given to physicians to work as osteoporosis specialists and become a certified clinical densitometrists. The CCD exam has a possible score range of 150 to 400. To pass, you need a score of 300. Methods: A 100-question multiple-choice practice exam was obtained from a 3rd party exam preparation website that mimics the accredited certification tests given by the ISCD (International Society for Clinical Densitometry). The exam was administered to two versions of GPT, the free version (GPT Playground) and ChatGPT+, which are based on GPT-3 and GPT-4, respectively (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA). The systems were prompted with the exam questions verbatim. If the response was purely textual and did not specify which of the multiple-choice answers to select, the authors matched the text to the closest answer. Each exam was graded and an estimated ISCD score was provided from the exam website. In addition, each response was evaluated by a rheumatologist CCD and ranked for accuracy using a 5-level scale. The two GPT versions were compared in terms of response accuracy and length. Results: The average response length was 11.6 ±19 words for GPT-3 and 50.0±43.6 words for GPT-4. GPT-3 answered 62 questions correctly resulting in a failing ISCD score of 289. However, GPT-4 answered 82 questions correctly with a passing score of 342. GPT-3 scored highest on the "Overview of Low Bone Mass and Osteoporosis" category (72 % correct) while GPT-4 scored well above 80 % accuracy on all categories except "Imaging Technology in Bone Health" (65 % correct). Regarding subjective accuracy, GPT-3 answered 23 questions with nonsensical or totally wrong responses while GPT-4 had no responses in that category. Conclusion: If this had been an actual certification exam, GPT-4 would now have a CCD suffix to its name even after being trained using general internet knowledge. Clearly, more goes into physician training than can be captured in this exam. However, GPT algorithms may prove to be valuable physician aids in the diagnoses and monitoring of osteoporosis and other diseases.

ChatGPT performance on radiation technologist and therapist entry to practice exams

Performance of Progressive Generations of GPT on an Exam Designed for Certifying Physicians as Certified Clinical Densitometrists

Evaluating Artificial Intelligence Competency in Education: Performance of ChatGPT-4 in the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT) Radiography Certification Exam

Could ChatGPT Pass the UK Radiology Fellowship Examinations?

Performance of ChatGPT on questions from the Brazilian College of Radiology annual resident evaluation test

Benchmarking ChatGPT-4 on ACR Radiation Oncology In-Training (TXIT) Exam and Red Journal Gray Zone Cases: Potentials and Challenges for AI-Assisted Medical Education and Decision Making in Radiation Oncology

Evaluation of ChatGPT's performance in Medical Education: A Comparative Analysis with Students in a Pulmonology Examination

Can ChatGPT pass the MRCP (UK) written examinations? Analysis of performance and errors using a clinical decision-reasoning framework

Benchmarking ChatGPT-4 on a radiation oncology in-training exam and Red Journal Gray Zone cases: potentials and challenges for ai-assisted medical education and decision making in radiation oncology

Performance of ChatGPT on a Radiology Board-style Examination: Insights into Current Strengths and Limitations

The Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence ChatGPT in Oncology Examination Questions

Can ChatGPT-4o really pass medical science exams? A pragmatic analysis using novel questions

Evaluating the competency of ChatGPT in MRCP Part 1 and a systematic literature review of its capabilities in postgraduate medical assessments

Comparative Performance of ChatGPT and Bard in a Text-Based Radiology Knowledge Assessment

ChatGPT in radiology: A systematic review of performance, pitfalls, and future perspectives

Evaluating ChatGPT Performance on the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination

Evaluation of Reliability, Repeatability, Robustness, and Confidence of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on a Radiology Board-style Examination

Evaluating ChatGPT to test its robustness as an interactive information database of radiation oncology and to assess its responses to common queries from radiotherapy patients: A single institution investigation

Can ChatGPT pass the thoracic surgery exam?

Can ChatGPT-3.5 Pass a Medical Exam? A Systematic Review of ChatGPT's Performance in Academic Testing

Performance of ChatGPT Across Different Versions in Medical Licensing Examinations Worldwide: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis