ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2025
Performance of large language models at the MRCS Part A: a tool for medical education?
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Comparison of Large Language Model Performance on the United Kingdom Neurology Specialty Certificate Examination.Cureus · 2026Article
- Uptake of Large Language Models by London Medical Students: Exploratory Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- The ACPGBI AI taskforce report: A mixed-methods roadmap for AI in colorectal surgery.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
- Qualitative metrics from the biomedical literature for evaluating large language models in clinical decision-making: a narrative review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons examination (MRCS) Part A assesses generic surgical sciences and applied knowledge using 300 multiple-choice Single Best Answer items. Large Language Models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of text to generate natural language outputs, and applications in healthcare and medical education are rising.
methodsTwo LLMs, ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Bard (Google AI), were tested using 300 questions from a popular MRCS Part A question bank without/with need for justification (NJ/J). LLM outputs were scored according to accuracy, concordance and insight.
resultsChatGPT achieved 85.7%/84.3% accuracy for NJ/J encodings. Bard achieved 64%/64.3% accuracy for NJ/J encodings. ChatGPT and Bard displayed high levels of concordance for NJ (95.3%; 81.7%) and J (93.7%; 79.7%) encodings, respectively. ChatGPT and Bard provided an insightful statement in >98% and >86% outputs, respectively. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates that ChatGPT achieves passing-level accuracy at MRCS Part A, and both LLMs achieve high concordance and provide insightful responses to test questions. Instances of clinically inappropriate or inaccurate decision-making, incomplete appreciation of nuanced clinical scenarios and utilisation of out-of-date guidance was, however, noted. LLMs are accessible and time-efficient tools, access vast clinical knowledge, and may reduce the emphasis on factual recall in medical education and assessment.
conclusionChatGPT achieves passing-level accuracy for MRCS Part A with concordant and insightful outputs. Future applications of LLMs in healthcare must be cautious of hallucinations and incorrect reasoning but have the potential to develop AI-supported clinicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.