ArticleJMIR medical education2024
Evaluating Large Language Models for the National Premedical Exam in India: Comparative Analysis of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Bard.
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.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Potential and Accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 in Medical Licensing and In-Training Examinations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Accuracy of Large Language Models When Answering Clinical Research Questions: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- [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 · 2026Article
- Performance of 5 AI Models on United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Questions: Comparative Observational Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- A Survey on Medical Competence Evaluation Benchmarks for Large Language Models.Health care science · 2026Review
- Large Language Models Evaluation of Medical Licensing Examination Using GPT-4.0, ERNIE Bot 4.0, and GPT-4o.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A multi-agent approach to neurological clinical reasoning.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- ChatGPT-3.5 and the Polish thoracic surgery specialty examination: a performance evaluation.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Application of Large Language Models in Stroke Rehabilitation Health Education: 2-Phase Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence Outperforms Physicians in General Medical Knowledge, Except in the Paediatrics Domain: A Cross-Sectional Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Semantic Clinical Artificial Intelligence vs Native Large Language Model Performance on the USMLE.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Exploring the role of artificial intelligence in Turkish orthopedic progression exams.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Assessing the Current Limitations of Large Language Models in Advancing Health Care Education.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Is your curriculum GenAI-proof? A method for GenAI impact assessment and a case study.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2025Article
- Supporting postgraduate exam preparation with large language models: implications for traditional Chinese medicine education.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of AI-powered Chatbots in responding to orthopaedic postgraduate exam questions-an observational study.International orthopaedics · 2024Observational
- 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
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.