Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38381486›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2024

Evaluating Large Language Models for the National Premedical Exam in India: Comparative Analysis of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Bard.

Faiza Farhat, Beenish Moalla Chaudhry, Mohammad Nadeem, Shahab Saquib Sohail, Dag Øivind Madsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. [Comparative study on the application of large language models in pre-exam learning for the Chinese dental licen-sing examination].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Exploring the potential of AI-powered applications for clinical decision-making in gynecologic oncology.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  9. ChatGPT-3.5 and the Polish thoracic surgery specialty examination: a performance evaluation.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. AI in oncology: comparing the diagnostic and therapeutic potential of claude 3 opus and ChatGPT 4.0 in HNSCC management.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Faiza FarhatDepartment of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1310-1586
Beenish Moalla ChaudhrySchool of Computing and Informatics, The University of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0437-6924
Mohammad NadeemDepartment of Computer Science, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India.ORCID 0000-0003-3664-5014
Shahab Saquib SohailSchool of Computing Science and Engineering, VIT Bhopal University, Sehore, India.ORCID 0000-0002-5944-7371
Dag Øivind MadsenSchool of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway, Hønefoss, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-8735-3332
Aligarh Muslim University · INBarkatullah University · INUniversity of Louisiana at Lafayette · USUniversity of South-Eastern Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing with their ability to generate human-like text through extensive training on large data sets. These models, including Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT)-3.5 (OpenAI), GPT-4 (OpenAI), and Bard (Google LLC), find applications beyond natural language processing, attracting interest from academia and industry. Students are actively leveraging LLMs to enhance learning experiences and prepare for high-stakes exams, such as the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) in India.

objectiveThis comparative analysis aims to evaluate the performance of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Bard in answering NEET-2023 questions.

methodsIn this paper, we evaluated the performance of the 3 mainstream LLMs, namely GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Google Bard, in answering questions related to the NEET-2023 exam. The questions of the NEET were provided to these artificial intelligence models, and the responses were recorded and compared against the correct answers from the official answer key. Consensus was used to evaluate the performance of all 3 models.

resultsIt was evident that GPT-4 passed the entrance test with flying colors (300/700, 42.9%), showcasing exceptional performance. On the other hand, GPT-3.5 managed to meet the qualifying criteria, but with a substantially lower score (145/700, 20.7%). However, Bard (115/700, 16.4%) failed to meet the qualifying criteria and did not pass the test. GPT-4 demonstrated consistent superiority over Bard and GPT-3.5 in all 3 subjects. Specifically, GPT-4 achieved accuracy rates of 73% (29/40) in physics, 44% (16/36) in chemistry, and 51% (50/99) in biology. Conversely, GPT-3.5 attained an accuracy rate of 45% (18/40) in physics, 33% (13/26) in chemistry, and 34% (34/99) in biology. The accuracy consensus metric showed that the matching responses between GPT-4 and Bard, as well as GPT-4 and GPT-3.5, had higher incidences of being correct, at 0.56 and 0.57, respectively, compared to the matching responses between Bard and GPT-3.5, which stood at 0.42. When all 3 models were considered together, their matching responses reached the highest accuracy consensus of 0.59.

conclusionsThe study's findings provide valuable insights into the performance of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Bard in answering NEET-2023 questions. GPT-4 emerged as the most accurate model, highlighting its potential for educational applications. Cross-checking responses across models may result in confusion as the compared models (as duos or a trio) tend to agree on only a little over half of the correct responses. Using GPT-4 as one of the compared models will result in higher accuracy consensus. The results underscore the suitability of LLMs for high-stakes exams and their positive impact on education. Additionally, the study establishes a benchmark for evaluating and enhancing LLMs' performance in educational tasks, promoting responsible and informed use of these models in diverse learning environments.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBenchmarkingConfusionEducational StatusHumansIndiaaccuracyAI modelartificial intelligenceBardChatGPTeducational taskGenerative Pre-trained TransformersGPT-4large language modelsmedical education, medical examnatural language processingperformancepremedical examssuitability

Identifiers

PMID38381486
PMCPMC10918540
OpenAlexW4388025354

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.