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

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Purpose

Bard by Google, a direct competitor to ChatGPT, was recently released. Understanding the relative performance of these different chatbots can provide important insight into their strengths and weaknesses as well as which roles they are most suited to fill. In this project, we aimed to compare the most recent version of ChatGPT, ChatGPT-4, and Bard by Google, in their ability to accurately respond to radiology board examination practice questions.

Methods

Text-based questions were collected from the 2017-2021 American College of Radiology’s Diagnostic Radiology In-Training (DXIT) examinations. ChatGPT-4 and Bard were queried, and their comparative accuracies, response lengths, and response times were documented. Subspecialty-specific performance was analyzed as well.

Results

318 questions were included in our analysis. ChatGPT answered significantly more accurately than Bard (87.11% vs 70.44%, P < .0001). ChatGPT’s response length was significantly shorter than Bard’s (935.28 ± 440.88 characters vs 1437.52 ± 415.91 characters, P < .0001). ChatGPT’s response time was significantly longer than Bard’s (26.79 ± 3.27 seconds vs 7.55 ± 1.88 seconds, P < .0001). ChatGPT performed superiorly to Bard in neuroradiology, (100.00% vs 86.21%, P = .03), general & physics (85.39% vs 68.54%, P < .001), nuclear medicine (80.00% vs 56.67%, P < .01), pediatric radiology (93.75% vs 68.75%, P = .03), and ultrasound (100.00% vs 63.64%, P < .001). In the remaining subspecialties, there were no significant differences between ChatGPT and Bard’s performance.

Conclusion

ChatGPT displayed superior radiology knowledge compared to Bard. While both chatbots display reasonable radiology knowledge, they should be used with conscious knowledge of their limitations and fallibility. Both chatbots provided incorrect or illogical answer explanations and did not always address the educational content of the question.

Related collections

Most cited references 22

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

How Does ChatGPT Perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination? The Implications of Large Language Models for Medical Education and Knowledge Assessment

Aidan Gilson, Conrad W Safranek, Thomas Huang … (2023)

Background Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is a 175-billion-parameter natural language processing model that can generate conversation-style responses to user input. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT on questions within the scope of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and Step 2 exams, as well as to analyze responses for user interpretability. Methods We used 2 sets of multiple-choice questions to evaluate ChatGPT’s performance, each with questions pertaining to Step 1 and Step 2. The first set was derived from AMBOSS, a commonly used question bank for medical students, which also provides statistics on question difficulty and the performance on an exam relative to the user base. The second set was the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) free 120 questions. ChatGPT’s performance was compared to 2 other large language models, GPT-3 and InstructGPT. The text output of each ChatGPT response was evaluated across 3 qualitative metrics: logical justification of the answer selected, presence of information internal to the question, and presence of information external to the question. Results Of the 4 data sets, AMBOSS-Step1 , AMBOSS-Step2 , NBME-Free-Step1 , and NBME-Free-Step2 , ChatGPT achieved accuracies of 44% (44/100), 42% (42/100), 64.4% (56/87), and 57.8% (59/102), respectively. ChatGPT outperformed InstructGPT by 8.15% on average across all data sets, and GPT-3 performed similarly to random chance. The model demonstrated a significant decrease in performance as question difficulty increased ( P =.01) within the AMBOSS-Step1 data set. We found that logical justification for ChatGPT’s answer selection was present in 100% of outputs of the NBME data sets. Internal information to the question was present in 96.8% (183/189) of all questions. The presence of information external to the question was 44.5% and 27% lower for incorrect answers relative to correct answers on the NBME-Free-Step1 ( P <.001) and NBME-Free-Step2 ( P =.001) data sets, respectively. Conclusions ChatGPT marks a significant improvement in natural language processing models on the tasks of medical question answering. By performing at a greater than 60% threshold on the NBME-Free-Step-1 data set, we show that the model achieves the equivalent of a passing score for a third-year medical student. Additionally, we highlight ChatGPT’s capacity to provide logic and informational context across the majority of answers. These facts taken together make a compelling case for the potential applications of ChatGPT as an interactive medical education tool to support learning.