Abstract
In the rapidly advancing field of artificial intelligence, large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Google Bard are making significant progress, with applications extending across various fields, including medicine. This study explores their potential utility and pitfalls by assessing the performance of these LLMs in answering 150 multiple-choice questions, encompassing 15 subspecialties in pathology, sourced from the PathologyOutlines.com Question Bank, a resource for pathology examination preparation. Overall, ChatGPT outperformed Google Bard, scoring 122 out of 150, while Google Bard achieved a score of 70. Additionally, we explored the consistency of these LLMs by applying a test-retest approach over a two-week interval. ChatGPT showed a consistency rate of 85%, while Google Bard exhibited a consistency rate of 61%. In-depth analysis of incorrect responses identified potential factual inaccuracies and interpretive errors. While LLMs have potential to enhance medical education and assist clinical decision-making, their current limitations underscore the need for continued development and the critical role of human expertise in the application of such models.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Discussion has been update to improve accuracy with some citations. The format of Table 2 has been edited.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the author
Abbreviations
- AI
- Artificial Intelligence
- LLMs
- Large Language Models
