ArticleCureus2024
Comparing Vision-Capable Models, GPT-4 and Gemini, With GPT-3.5 on Taiwan's Pulmonologist Exam.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Two AI Chatbots for Diagnosis and Providing Treatment Suggestions in Retinopathy of Prematurity: Retrospective Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Limitations in Chest X-Ray Interpretation by Vision-Capable Large Language Models, Gemini 1.0, Gemini 1.5 Pro, GPT-4 Turbo, and GPT-4o.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- The two-stage detection-after-segmentation model improves the accuracy of identifying subdiaphragmatic lesions.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The latest generation of large language models (LLMs) features multimodal capabilities, allowing them to interpret graphics, images, and videos, which are crucial in medical fields. This study investigates the vision capabilities of the next-generation Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4) and Google's Gemini. Methods To establish a comparative baseline, we used GPT-3.5, a model limited to text processing, and evaluated the performance of both GPT-4 and Gemini on questions from the Taiwan Specialist Board Exams in Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine. Our dataset included 1,100 questions from 2012 to 2023, with 100 questions per year. Of these, 1,059 were in pure text and 41 were text with images, with the majority in a non-English language and only six in pure English. Results For each annual exam consisting of 100 questions from 2013 to 2023, GPT-4 achieved scores of 66, 69, 51, 64, 72, 64, 66, 64, 63, 68, and 67, respectively. Gemini scored 45, 48, 45, 45, 46, 59, 54, 41, 53, 45, and 45, while GPT-3.5 scored 39, 33, 35, 36, 32, 33, 43, 28, 32, 33, and 36. Conclusions These results demonstrate that the newer LLMs with vision capabilities significantly outperform the text-only model. When a passing score of 60 was set, GPT-4 passed most exams and approached human performance.
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.