Back

The Limits of Prompt Engineering in Medical Problem-Solving: A Comparative Analysis with ChatGPT on calculation based USMLE Medical Questions

Patel, D.; Raut, G.; Zimlichman, E.; Cheetirala, S.; Nadkarni, G.; Glicksberg, B. S.; Freeman, R.; Timsina, P.; Klang, E.

2023-08-09 medical education
10.1101/2023.08.06.23293710 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPrompt engineering significantly improves the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs), including GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. However, its utilization remains largely uncharted in the medical field. ObjectiveThis research aimed to assess the influence of different prompt engineering strategies on ChatGPT (GPT-3.5) in solving medical problems, specifically focusing on medical calculations and clinical scenarios. DesignWe utilized three different prompting strategies--direct prompting, the chain of thoughts (CoT), and a modified CoT method--across two sets of USMLE-style questions. SettingThe experiment was conducted using a 1000-question dataset, generated by GPT-4 with a specialized prompt, and a secondary analysis with 95 actual USMLE Step 1 questions. MeasurementsModel performance was assessed based on accuracy in answering medical calculation and clinical scenario questions across varying difficulty levels and medical subjects. ResultsDirect prompting demonstrated non-inferior accuracy compared to the CoT and modified CoT methods in both question categories. This trend remained consistent regardless of difficulty level or subject matter in the GPT-4-generated dataset and USMLE Step 1 sample questions. LimitationsThe study evaluated GPT-3.5 for answering and GPT 4 for question generation, limiting generalizability. ConclusionOur findings indicate that while prompt engineering can facilitate question generation, as exemplified by GPT-4, it does not necessarily improve model performance in answering medical calculation or clinical scenario questions. This suggests that the ChatGPT model is already effectively optimized for such tasks. Additionally, this finding simplifies the use of such models in healthcare settings, allowing practitioners to interact effectively with tools like ChatGPT without the need for complex prompt engineering, potentially encouraging wider adoption in clinical practice for problem-solving, patient care, and continuous learning.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.