ArticleJAMA network open2023
Performance of Large Language Models on a Neurology Board-Style Examination.
Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 73 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
73 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Accuracy of Large Language Models When Answering Clinical Research Questions: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Large Language Models for Mental Health Applications: Systematic Review.JMIR mental health · 2024Pooled it
- AI-Based EMG Reporting: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of neurology · 2025Trial
- Performance of large language models on the Japanese cardiovascular surgery board examination: a comparative analysis of eight contemporary AI models with educational implications.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- Performance of Seven Large Language Models on Anatomy Examination Questions.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Humans vs. large language models in neurology board examination: performance, limitations, and reference reliability.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2026Article
- Agentic AI for scaling diagnosis and care in neurodegenerative disease.Nature aging · 2026Review
- Assessing AI and Neurologist Diagnostic Reasoning Against Neuropathological Ground Truth.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Large Language Models and Their Applications in Mental Health: Scoping Review.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Assessment of Correctness, Content Omission, and Risk of Harm in Large Language Model Responses to Ophthalmology Continuing Medical Education Questions.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Open-Source Large Language Models Distilled DeepSeek-R1 Pose Challenges for On-Premises Clinical Deployment in Medical Diagnosis: A Comparative Study of Performance.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Comparison of the performance of ChatGPT-5, Gemini 3, Copilot, Perplexity, and medical students in answering neurology questions: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative Performance of Large Language Models on European Gastroenterology Board-Style Questions: Analysis of Reasoning Versus Non-Reasoning Architectures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- AI-driven Medical Care: Evaluation of Large Language Models in Generating Personalized Stroke Education Materials.Healthcare informatics research · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of large language models in answering cornea and cataract surgery questions for resident training.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Benchmark evaluation of large language models for clinical decision support in headache management.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2026Article
- Article
- Multimodal large language models challenge NEJM image challenge.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- From diagnostics to education: Multi-domain evaluation of LLM chatbots in neurology.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2026Review
13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have shown potential in a wide array of applications, including health care. While LLMs showed heterogeneous results across specialized medical board examinations, the performance of these models in neurology board examinations remains unexplored. Objective: To assess the performance of LLMs on neurology board-style examinations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted between May 17 and May 31, 2023. The evaluation utilized a question bank approved by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology and was validated with a small question cohort by the European Board for Neurology. All questions were categorized into lower-order (recall, understanding) and higher-order (apply, analyze, synthesize) questions based on the Bloom taxonomy for learning and assessment. Performance by LLM ChatGPT versions 3.5 (LLM 1) and 4 (LLM 2) was assessed in relation to overall scores, question type, and topics, along with the confidence level and reproducibility of answers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall percentage scores of 2 LLMs. Results: LLM 2 significantly outperformed LLM 1 by correctly answering 1662 of 1956 questions (85.0%) vs 1306 questions (66.8%) for LLM 1. Notably, LLM 2's performance was greater than the mean human score of 73.8%, effectively achieving near-passing and passing grades in the neurology board examination. LLM 2 outperformed human users in behavioral, cognitive, and psychological-related questions and demonstrated superior performance to LLM 1 in 6 categories. Both LLMs performed better on lower-order than higher-order questions, with LLM 2 excelling in both lower-order and higher-order questions. Both models consistently used confident language, even when providing incorrect answers. Reproducible answers of both LLMs were associated with a higher percentage of correct answers than inconsistent answers. Conclusions and Relevance: Despite the absence of neurology-specific training, LLM 2 demonstrated commendable performance, whereas LLM 1 performed slightly below the human average. While higher-order cognitive tasks were more challenging for both models, LLM 2's results were equivalent to passing grades in specialized neurology examinations. These findings suggest that LLMs could have significant applications in clinical neurology and health care with further refinements.
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.