ChatGPT’s role in creating multiple-choice questions (MCQs) is growing but the validity of these artificial-intelligence-generated questions is unclear. This literature review was conducted to address the urgent need for understanding the application of ChatGPT in generating MCQs for medical education. Following the database search and screening of 1920 studies, we found 23 relevant studies. We extracted the prompts for MCQ generation and assessed the validity evidence of MCQs. The findings showed that prompts varied, including referencing specific exam styles and adopting specific personas, which align with recommended prompt engineering tactics. The validity evidence covered various domains, showing mixed accuracy rates, with some studies indicating comparable quality to human-written questions, and others highlighting differences in difficulty and discrimination levels, alongside a significant reduction in question creation time. Despite its efficiency, we highlight the necessity of careful review and suggest a need for further research to optimize the use of ChatGPT in question generation. Main messages Ensure high-quality outputs by utilizing well-designed prompts; medical educators should prioritize the use of detailed, clear ChatGPT prompts when generating MCQs. Avoid using ChatGPT-generated MCQs directly in examinations without thorough review to prevent inaccuracies and ensure relevance. Leverage ChatGPT’s potential to streamline the test development process, enhancing efficiency without compromising quality.

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of ChatGPT-generated feedback compared to expert-written feedback in improving clinical reasoning skills among first-year medical students. Methods: This is a randomized controlled trial conducted at a single medical school and involved 129 first-year medical students who were randomly assigned to two groups. Both groups completed three formative tests with feedback on urinary tract infections (UTIs; uncomplicated, complicated, pyelonephritis) over five consecutive days as a spaced repetition, receiving either expert-written feedback (control, n = 65) or ChatGPT-generated feedback (experiment, n = 64). Clinical reasoning skills were assessed using Key-Features Questions (KFQs) immediately after the intervention and 10 days later. Students’ critical approach to artificial intelligence (AI) was also measured before and after disclosing the AI involvement in feedback generation. Results: There was no significant difference between the mean scores of the control (immediate: 78.5 ± 20.6 delayed: 78.0 ± 21.2) and experiment (immediate: 74.7 ± 15.1, delayed: 76.0 ± 14.5) groups in overall performance on Key-Features Questions (out of 120 points) immediately (P = .26) or after 10 days (P = .57), with small effect sizes. However, the control group outperformed the ChatGPT group in complicated urinary tract infection cases (P < .001). The experiment group showed a significantly higher critical approach to AI after disclosing, with medium-large effect sizes. Conclusions: ChatGPT-generated feedback can be an effective alternative to expert feedback in improving clinical reasoning skills in medical students, particularly in resource-constrained settings with limited expert availability. However, AI-generated feedback may lack the nuance needed for more complex cases, emphasizing the need for expert review. Additionally, exposure to the drawbacks in AI-generated feedback can enhance students’ critical approach towards AI-generated educational content.

This study aimed to evaluate the real-life performance of clinical vignettes and multiple-choice questions generated by using ChatGPT. This was a randomized controlled study in an evidence-based medicine training program. We randomly assigned seventy-four medical students to two groups. The ChatGPT group received ill-defined cases generated by ChatGPT, while the control group received human-written cases. At the end of the training, they evaluated the cases by rating 10 statements using a Likert scale. They also answered 15 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) generated by ChatGPT. The case evaluations of the two groups were compared. Some psychometric characteristics (item difficulty and point-biserial correlations) of the test were also reported. None of the scores in 10 statements regarding the cases showed a significant difference between the ChatGPT group and the control group (p > .05). In the test, only six MCQs had acceptable levels (higher than 0.30) of point-biserial correlation, and five items could be considered acceptable in classroom settings. The results showed that the quality of the vignettes are comparable to those created by human authors, and some multiple-questions have acceptable psychometric characteristics. ChatGPT has potential in generating clinical vignettes for teaching and MCQs for assessment in medical education.

A fundamental challenge in medical education is creating high-quality, clinically relevant multiple-choice questions (MCQs). ChatGPT-based automatic item generation (AIG) methods need well-designed prompts. However, the use of these prompts is hindered by the time-consuming process of copying and pasting, a lack of know-how among medical teachers, and the generalist nature of standard ChatGPT, which often lacks the medical context. The Case-based MCQ Generator, a custom GPT, addresses these challenges. It has been trained by using GPT Builder, which is a platform designed by OpenAI for customizing ChatGPT to meet specific needs, in order to allow users to generate case-based MCQs. By using this free tool for those who have ChatGPT Plus subscription, health professions educators can easily select a prompt, input a learning objective or item-specific test point, and generate clinically relevant questions. It enhances the efficiency of MCQ generation and ensures the generation of contextually relevant questions, surpassing the capabilities of standard ChatGPT. It streamlines the MCQ creation process by integrating prompts published in medical education literature, eliminating the need for manual prompt input. Future development aims at sustainability and addressing ethical and accessibility issues. It requires regular updates, integration of new prompts from emerging health professions education literature, and a supportive digital ecosystem around the tool. Accessibility, especially for educators in low-resource countries, is vital, demanding alternative access models to overcome financial barriers.

The significant challenge faced by medical schools is the effortful process of writing a high quantity of high-quality case-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs) to assess the higher-order skills of medical students. The demand for a high volume of MCQs in education has led to the development of Automatic Item Generation (AIG), specifically template-based AIG, which involves creating cognitive and item models by subject matter experts to generate hundreds of MCQs at once using software. It demonstrated significant success in various languages and even being incorporated into national medical licensure exams. However, this method still heavily depends on the efforts of subject matter experts. This paper introduces a detailed ChatGPT prompt for quickly generating case-based MCQs and provides important research questions for future exploration into ChatGPT's potential in generating items, signaling the beginning of the artificial intelligence era in medical education, encouraging health professions education researchers to delve deeper into its potential.