AI versus human-generated multiple-choice questions for medical education: a cohort study in a high-stakes examination
BACKGROUND: The creation of high-quality multiple-choice questions (MCQs) is essential for medical education assessments but is resource-intensive and time-consuming when done by human experts. Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT-4o offer a promising alternative, but their efficacy remains unclear, particularly in high-stakes exams. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the quality and psychometric properties of ChatGPT-4o-generated MCQs compared to human-created MCQs in a high-stakes me
Record details
Published: 8 February 2025
Source: OpenAlex
Category: Research
Topics: Healthcare · Children & education
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
Application of ChatGPT-assisted problem-based learning teaching method in clinical medical education
OpenAlex · 11 January 2025
Impact of large language model (ChatGPT) in healthcare: an umbrella review and evidence synthesis
OpenAlex · 7 May 2025
The application of large language models in medicine: A scoping review
OpenAlex · 23 April 2024
When AI Takes the Couch: Psychometric Jailbreaks Reveal Internal Conflict in Frontier Models
arXiv cs.CY · 21 July 2026
Performance of 5 Large Language Models in Perioperative Consultation for Pediatric Hypospadias: Cross-Sectional Comparative Study
JMIR (Journal of Medical Internet Research) · 29 July 2026
Shaping the Future of Education: Exploring the Potential and Consequences of AI and ChatGPT in Educational Settings
OpenAlex · 7 July 2023
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (8 February 2025), “AI versus human-generated multiple-choice questions for medical education: a cohort study in a high-stakes examination,” evidence record 9842, https://ethics.ai/record/9842 (originally published by OpenAlex).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.