Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38060223›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Performance of Large Language Models on a Neurology Board-Style Examination.

Marc Cicero Schubert, Wolfgang Wick, Varun Venkataramani

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

73 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marc Cicero SchubertNeurology Clinic and National Center for Tumor Diseases, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Wolfgang WickNeurology Clinic and National Center for Tumor Diseases, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Varun VenkataramaniNeurology Clinic and National Center for Tumor Diseases, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
German Cancer Research Center · DEHeidelberg University · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

LanguageNeurologyCross-Sectional StudiesHumansNeurologic ExaminationReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID38060223
PMCPMC10704278
OpenAlexW4389431826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.