The purpose of this study was to compare performance of ChatGPT (GPT-3.5), ChatGPT (GPT-4), Claude2, Llama2-7b, and Llama2-13b on 219 multiple-choice questions focusing on critical care pharmacotherapy. To further assess the ability of engineering LLMs to improve reasoning abilities and performance, we examined responses with a zero-shot Chain-of-Thought (CoT) approach, CoT prompting, and a custom built GPT (PharmacyGPT). A 219 multiple-choice questions focused on critical care pharmacotherapy topics used in Doctor of Pharmacy curricula from two accredited colleges of pharmacy was compiled for this study. A total of five LLMs were evaluated: ChatGPT (GPT-3.5), ChatGPT (GPT-4), Claude2, Llama2-7b, and Llama2-13b. The primary outcome was response accuracy. Of the five LLMs tested, GPT-4 showed the highest average accuracy rate at 71.6%. A larger variance indicates lower consistency and reduced confidence in its answers. Llama2-13b had the lowest variance (0.070) of all the LLMs, but performed with an accuracy of 41.5%. Following analaysis of overall accuracy, performance on knowledge- vs. skill-based questions were assessed. All five LLMs demonstrated higher accuracy on knowledge-based questions compared to skill-based questions. GPT-4 had the highest accuracy for knowledge- and skill-based questions, with an accuracy of 87% and 67%, respectively. Response accuracy from LLMs in the domain of clinical pharmacy can be improved by using prompt engineering techniques.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Most et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: