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.

GPT-4 Turbo with Vision fails to outperform text-only GPT-4 Turbo in the Japan Diagnostic Radiology Board Examination

Capability of GPT-4V(ision) in Japanese National Medical Licensing Examination

Performance of GPT-4 with Vision on Text- and Image-based ACR Diagnostic Radiology In-Training Examination Questions

Evaluating GPT-4o's Performance in the Official European Board of Radiology Exam: A Comprehensive Assessment

Evaluation of GPT Large Language Model Performance on RSNA 2023 Case of the Day Questions

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

An Early Evaluation of GPT-4V(ision)

Assessing GPT-4 Multimodal Performance in Radiological Image Analysis

Hidden flaws behind expert-level accuracy of multimodal GPT-4 vision in medicine

Can GPT-4V(ision) Serve Medical Applications? Case Studies on GPT-4V for Multimodal Medical Diagnosis

Comparative Analysis of GPT-4Vision, GPT-4 and Open Source LLMs in Clinical Diagnostic Accuracy: A Benchmark Against Human Expertise

Keeping Up With ChatGPT

Performance of GPT-4 Vision on kidney pathology exam questions

From Text to Image: Exploring GPT-4Vision's Potential in Advanced Radiological Analysis across Subspecialties

GPT-4V(ision) Unsuitable for Clinical Care and Education: A Clinician-Evaluated Assessment

Performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on the Japanese Medical Licensing Examination: Comparison Study

GPT-4 Vision: Multi-Modal Evolution of ChatGPT and Potential Role in Radiology

Comparative analysis of GPT-4-based ChatGPT's diagnostic performance with radiologists using real-world radiology reports of brain tumors

Comparing Vision-Capable Models, GPT-4 and Gemini, With GPT-3.5 on Taiwan's Pulmonologist Exam

Performance of Multimodal GPT-4V on USMLE with Image: Potential for Imaging Diagnostic Support with Explanations

Revolution or risk?—Assessing the potential and challenges of GPT-4V in radiologic image interpretation