Assessing readability of explanations and reliability of answers by GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in non-traumatic spinal cord injury education
Bibliographic Data
Purpose Our study aimed to: i) Assess the readability of textbook explanations using established indexes; ii) Compare these with GPT-4’s default explanations, ensuring similar word counts for direct comparisons; iii) Evaluate GPT-4’s adaptability by simplifying high-complexity explanations; iv) Determine the reliability of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in providing accurate answers.Material and methods We utilized a textbook designed for ABPMR certification. Our analysis covered 50 multiple-choice questions, each with a detailed explanation, focusing on non-traumatic spinal cord injury (NTSCI).Results Our analysis revealed statistically significant differences in readability scores, with the textbook achieving 14.5 (SD = 2.5) compared to GPT-4’s 17.3 (SD = 1.9), indicating that GPT-4’s explanations are generally more complex (p < 0.001). Using the Flesch Reading Ease Score, 86% of GPT-4’s explanations fell into the ‘Very difficult’ category, significantly higher than the textbook’s 58% (p = 0.006). GPT-4 successfully demonstrated adaptability by reducing the mean readability score of the top-nine most complex explanations, maintaining the word count. Regarding reliability, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 scored 84% and 96% respectively, with GPT-4 outperforming GPT-3.5 (p = 0.046).Conclusions Our results confirmed GPT-4’s potential in medical education by providing highly accurate yet often complex explanations for NTSCI, which were successfully simplified without losing accuracy
Medical education · Psychiatry · Readability · Reliability (semiconductor) · Spinal cord · Spinal cord injury · Applied Psychology · Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Clinical Psychology · Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills · Computer Science · Innovations in Medical Education · Medicine · Psychology
| Highly cited | No |
|---|