Performance of Chatgpt 3.5 and 4 on U.S. Dental Examinations: The Inbde, Adat, and Dat Publisher



M Dashti MAHMOOD ; S Ghasemi SHOHREH ; N Ghadimi NILOOFAR ; D Hefzi DELBAND ; A Karimian AZIZEH ; N Zare NIUSHA ; A Fahimipour AMIR ; Z Khurshid ZOHAIB ; M Mohammadalizadeh Chafjiri MARYAM ; S Ghaedsharaf SAHAR
Source: Imaging Science in Dentistry Published:2024

Abstract

Purpose: Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly tools such as ChatGPT developed by OpenAI, a U.S.-based AI research organization, have transformed the healthcare and education sectors. This study investigated the effectiveness of ChatGPT in answering dentistry exam questions, demonstrating its potential to enhance professional practice and patient care. Materials and Methods: This study assessed the performance of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 on U.S. dental exams - specifically, the Integrated National Board Dental Examination (INBDE), Dental Admission Test (DAT), and Advanced Dental Admission Test (ADAT) - excluding image-based questions. Using customized prompts, ChatGPT’s answers were evaluated against official answer sheets. Results: ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 were tested with 253 questions from the INBDE, ADAT, and DAT exams. For the INBDE, both versions achieved 80% accuracy in knowledge-based questions and 66–69% in case history questions. In ADAT, they scored 66–83% in knowledge-based and 76% in case history questions. ChatGPT 4 excelled on the DAT, with 94% accuracy in knowledge-based questions, 57% in mathematical analysis items, and 100% in comprehension questions, surpassing ChatGPT 3.5’s rates of 83%, 31%, and 82%, respectively. The difference was significant for knowledge-based questions (P= 0.009). Both versions showed similar patterns in incorrect responses. Conclusion: Both ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 effectively handled knowledge-based, case history, and comprehension questions, with ChatGPT 4 being more reliable and surpassing the performance of 3.5. ChatGPT 4’s perfect score in comprehension questions underscores its trainability in specific subjects. However, both versions exhibited weaker performance in mathematical analysis, suggesting this as an area for improvement. © 2024 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.