Background Mechanical ventilation (MV) is a critical competency in critical care training, yet standardized methods for assessing MV-related knowledge are lacking. Traditional multiple-choice question (MCQ) development is resource-intensive, and prior studies have suggested that generative AI tools could streamline question creation. However, the effectiveness and reliability of AI-generated MCQs remain unclear. This study evaluates whether MCQs generated by ChatGPT are non-inferior to human-expert (HE) created questions in terms of quality and relevance for MV education. Methods Three key MV topics were selected: Equation of Motion & Ohm's Law, Tau & Auto PEEP, and Oxygenation. Fifteen learning objectives were used to generate 15 AI-written MCQs via a standardized prompt with ChatGPT o1 (model o1-preview-2024-09-12). A group of 31 faculty experts, all of whom regularly teach MV, evaluated both AI-generated and HE-generated MCQs. Each MCQ was assessed based on its alignment with learning objectives, accuracy, clarity, plausibility of distractors, and difficulty level. The faculty members were blinded to the provenance of the MCQ questions. The non-inferiority margin was predefined as 15% of the total possible score (-3.45). Results AI-generated MCQs were statistically non-inferior to expert-written MCQs (95% upper CI: [-1.15, ∞]). Additionally, respondents were unable to reliably differentiate AI-generated from HE-written MCQs (p = 0.32). Conclusion AI-generated MCQs using ChatGPT o1 are comparable in quality and difficulty to those written by human experts. Given the time and resource-intensive nature of human MCQ development, AI-assisted question generation may serve as an efficient and scalable alternative for medical education assessment, even in highly specialized domains such as mechanical ventilation.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors