1. The performance of a large language model called ChatGPT was evaluated on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE).
2. ChatGPT performed at or near the passing threshold for all three exams without any specialized training or reinforcement.
3. The results suggest that large language models may have potential to assist with medical education and potentially, clinical decision-making.
The article “Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models” is a peer-reviewed research article published in PLOS Digital Health. The article provides an evaluation of the performance of a large language model called ChatGPT on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE). The authors found that ChatGPT performed at or near the passing threshold for all three exams without any specialized training or reinforcement, suggesting that large language models may have potential to assist with medical education and potentially, clinical decision-making.
The article is generally trustworthy and reliable, as it is based on peer-reviewed research and provides evidence to support its claims. However, there are some points of consideration that should be noted when evaluating this article. First, while the authors provide evidence to support their claims, they do not explore counterarguments or alternative perspectives on their findings. Additionally, while the authors note that AI applications in clinical care remain limited due to a lack of structured data and domain-specific training data, they do not discuss potential solutions to these issues or how they could be addressed in order to facilitate wider adoption of AI in healthcare settings. Finally, while the authors note that Inception-V3 serves as the basic foundation of many top medical imaging models currently published, they do not discuss potential risks associated with relying heavily on general domain models rather than domain-specific models when developing AI applications for clinical care.
In conclusion, this article is generally trustworthy and reliable but could benefit from further exploration into counterarguments and alternative perspectives as well as discussion of potential solutions to challenges associated with developing AI applications for clinical care and potential risks associated with relying heavily on general domain models rather than domain-specific models when developing such applications.