[ChatGPT与德国眼科医师资格考试:一项评估]

[ChatGPT and the German board examination for ophthalmology: an evaluation].

作者信息

Yaïci Rémi, Cieplucha M, Bock R, Moayed F, Bechrakis N E, Berens P, Feltgen N, Friedburg D, Gräf M, Guthoff R, Hoffmann E M, Hoerauf H, Hintschich C, Kohnen T, Messmer E M, Nentwich M M, Pleyer U, Schaudig U, Seitz B, Geerling G, Roth M

机构信息

Klinik für Augenheilkunde, Medizinische Fakultät, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Heinrich-Heine Universität Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.

Augenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Deutschland.

出版信息

Ophthalmologie. 2024 Jul;121(7):554-564. doi: 10.1007/s00347-024-02046-0. Epub 2024 May 27.

Abstract

PURPOSE

In recent years artificial intelligence (AI), as a new segment of computer science, has also become increasingly more important in medicine. The aim of this project was to investigate whether the current version of ChatGPT (ChatGPT 4.0) is able to answer open questions that could be asked in the context of a German board examination in ophthalmology.

METHODS

After excluding image-based questions, 10 questions from 15 different chapters/topics were selected from the textbook 1000 questions in ophthalmology (1000 Fragen Augenheilkunde 2nd edition, 2014). ChatGPT was instructed by means of a so-called prompt to assume the role of a board certified ophthalmologist and to concentrate on the essentials when answering. A human expert with considerable expertise in the respective topic, evaluated the answers regarding their correctness, relevance and internal coherence. Additionally, the overall performance was rated by school grades and assessed whether the answers would have been sufficient to pass the ophthalmology board examination.

RESULTS

The ChatGPT would have passed the board examination in 12 out of 15 topics. The overall performance, however, was limited with only 53.3% completely correct answers. While the correctness of the results in the different topics was highly variable (uveitis and lens/cataract 100%; optics and refraction 20%), the answers always had a high thematic fit (70%) and internal coherence (71%).

CONCLUSION

The fact that ChatGPT 4.0 would have passed the specialist examination in 12 out of 15 topics is remarkable considering the fact that this AI was not specifically trained for medical questions; however, there is a considerable performance variability between the topics, with some serious shortcomings that currently rule out its safe use in clinical practice.

摘要

目的

近年来,人工智能(AI)作为计算机科学的一个新领域,在医学中也变得越来越重要。本项目的目的是研究当前版本的ChatGPT(ChatGPT 4.0)是否能够回答在德国眼科医师资格考试中可能出现的开放性问题。

方法

排除基于图像的问题后,从眼科教材《眼科1000问》(《眼科1000问》第2版,2014年)的15个不同章节/主题中选取10个问题。通过所谓的提示语指导ChatGPT扮演一名获得认证的眼科医师的角色,并在回答时专注于要点。一位在各自主题方面具有相当专业知识的人类专家,对答案的正确性、相关性和内部连贯性进行评估。此外,根据学校成绩对整体表现进行评分,并评估这些答案是否足以通过眼科医师资格考试。

结果

ChatGPT在15个主题中的12个主题上能够通过资格考试。然而,整体表现有限,完全正确的答案仅占53.3%。虽然不同主题的结果正确性差异很大(葡萄膜炎和晶状体/白内障为100%;光学和屈光为20%),但答案的主题契合度(70%)和内部连贯性(71%)始终很高。

结论

考虑到这种人工智能并未针对医学问题进行专门训练,ChatGPT 4.0能在15个主题中的12个主题上通过专业考试,这一事实值得注意;然而,不同主题之间的表现存在相当大的差异,存在一些严重缺陷,目前排除了其在临床实践中的安全使用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索