Abstract ID 126248 Poster Board 224 Purpose: The objective of this study is to establish the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence (AI) when scoring medical student exam questions in an open-ended format (OEQ) compared to a faculty content expert. Background: Despite the numerous benefits to including OEQs in assessment of medical knowledge¹,², only 39% of US allopathic medical schools use them³. Faculty report that the biggest barrier is the time it takes to grade student responses¹,². Natural language processing has been explored to automate scoring of clinical reasoning⁴, but no study has evaluated the use of generative AI to score OEQ responses in the pre-clerkship curriculum. Methods: OEQ responses from two questions administered at the Zucker School of Medicine (ZSOM) and the University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine (UCSF) were used for the current study⁵. Responses from 54 students per site were analyzed. Content experts scored the responses using an analytic (ZSOM) or holistic rubric (UCSF). Questions, rubrics, and student responses were fed into the GPT-4 model via the Med2Lab platform. Once finalized, scores for each student's response were generated. Cohen's weighted kappa (kw) was used to evaluate inter-rater reliability (IRR) between the content expert and generative AI scores, with kw scores between 0.60 and 0.80 being considered substantial⁶. Prompt engineering was employed for question 1 (analytic rubric) to evaluate its impact on IRR. Results: IRR between the content expert and generative AI scores was substantial using the analytic rubric (question 1: kw = 0.71; question 2: kw = 0.63) and the holistic rubric (question 1: kw = 0.66; question 2: kw = 0.68). IRR for question 1 (analytic rubric) was initially kw = 0.61 but was increased to kw = 0.71 after adjustments with prompt engineering and re-run in GPT-4. Conclusions: Generative AI can score OEQs with substantial reliability. With the potential to alleviate grading burden, AI scoring will allow medical schools to broadly implement OEQs for assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kruidering et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: