Abstract
PurposeThe aim of this study was to compare the performances of Google Gemini and ChatGPT-4, facing a triple simulation of the European Board of Ophthalmologists (EBO) multiple choices exam. DesignObservational study. MethodsThe EBO multiple choice examination consists of 52 questions followed by 5 statements each, for a total of 260 answers. Statements may be answered with “True”, “False” or “Don't Know”: a correct answer is awarded 1 point; an incorrect is penalized 0.5 points; “don't know” scores 0 points. At least 60 % correct answers are needed to pass the exam. After explaining the rules to the chatbots, he entire question with the 5 statements was input. The rate of correct answers and the final score were collected. The exam simulation was repeated 3 times with randomly generated questions. ResultsGoogle Gemini and ChatGPT-4 succeed in EBO exam simulations in all 3 cases, with an average 85.3 ± 3.1 % and 83.3 ± 2.4 % of correct answers. Gemini had a lower error rate compared to ChatGPT (6.7 ± 1.5 % vs. 13.0 ± 2.6 %, p = 0.03), but answered “Don't know” more frequently (8.0 ± 2.7 % vs. 3.7 ± 1.5 %, p = 0.05). Both chatbots scored at least 70 % of correct answers in each exam subspecialty across the 3 simulations. Converting the percentages into points, Gemini scored 213.5 ± 9.3 points on average, compared to 199.8 ± 7.1 points for ChatGPT (p = 0.21). ConclusionsGoogle Gemini and ChatGPT-4 can both succeed in a complex ophthalmology examination on widespread topics, with higher accuracy compared to their former versions, highlighting their evolving importance in educational and informative setting. PrecisGoogle Gemini and ChatGPT-4 were both able to succeed in 3 consecutive exam simulations of the European Board of Ophthalmologists with an average of 85 % and 83 % correct answers, respectively. Google Gemini showed significantly less errors when compared to ChatGPT.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.