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.
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.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- One LLM is not Enough: Harnessing the Power of Ensemble Learning for Medical Question Answering 95%
- Design and implementation of a system for automated monitoring of adherence to evidenced-based clinical guideline recommendations 94%
- Structured Codes and Free-Text Notes: Measuring Information Complementarity in Electronic Health Records 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Large Language Models in Real-World Clinical Workflows: A Systematic Review of Applications and Implementation 93%
- Listening to mental health crisis needs at scale: using Natural Language Processing to understand and evaluate a mental health crisis text messaging service 93%
- Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Model Integrated with the Clinical Workflow for Inpatient Discharge Date Prediction 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance of ChatGPT on Chinese National Medical Licensing Examinations: A Five-Year Examination Evaluation Study for Physicians, Pharmacists and Nurses 96%
- Large language models for generating medical examinations: systematic review 94%
- Medical students' perceptions towards artificial intelligence in education and practice: A multinational, multicenter cross-sectional study 90%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.