ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Performance of Publicly Available Large Language Models on Internal Medicine Board-style Questions.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Improving large language model applications in biomedicine with retrieval-augmented generation: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and clinical development guidelines.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review on the generative AI applications in human medical genetics.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models on Anesthesiology Board-Style Questions: Benchmark Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative Performance of Large Language Models on European Gastroenterology Board-Style Questions: Analysis of Reasoning Versus Non-Reasoning Architectures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Retrieval-augmented generative AI enhances clinical reasoning in odontogenic sinusitis versus maxillary sinus mucositis.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 · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of large language models in answering cornea and cataract surgery questions for resident training.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Cardiology knowledge assessment of retrieval-augmented open versus proprietary large language models.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Performance of large language models on sleep medicine certification examination: a comprehensive multi-model analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of large language models on multiple-choice and image-based rheumatology questions.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Evaluating the performance of large language models versus human researchers on real world complex medical queries.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Challenges of Implementing LLMs in Clinical Practice: Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Development and Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence-Powered Surgical Oral Examination Simulator: A Pilot Study.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Article
- Evaluating large language model performance to support the diagnosis and management of patients with primary immune disorders.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2025Article
- Harnessing advanced large language models in otolaryngology board examinations: an investigation using python and application programming interfaces.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
- Evaluating large language models as patient education tools for inflammatory bowel disease: A comparative study.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ongoing research attempts to benchmark large language models (LLM) against physicians' fund of knowledge by assessing LLM performance on medical examinations. No prior study has assessed LLM performance on internal medicine (IM) board examination questions. Limited data exists on how knowledge supplied to the models, derived from medical texts improves LLM performance. The performance of GPT-3.5, GPT-4.0, LaMDA and Llama 2, with and without additional model input augmentation, was assessed on 240 randomly selected IM board-style questions. Questions were sourced from the Medical Knowledge Self-Assessment Program released by the American College of Physicians with each question serving as part of the LLM prompt. When available, LLMs were accessed both through their application programming interface (API) and their corresponding chatbot. Mode inputs were augmented with Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine using the method of Retrieval Augmented Generation. LLM-generated explanations to 25 correctly answered questions were presented in a blinded fashion alongside the MKSAP explanation to an IM board-certified physician tasked with selecting the human generated response. GPT-4.0, accessed either through Bing Chat or its API, scored 77.5-80.7% outperforming GPT-3.5, human respondents, LaMDA and Llama 2 in that order. GPT-4.0 outperformed human MKSAP users on every tested IM subject with its highest and lowest percentile scores in Infectious Disease (80th) and Rheumatology (99.7th), respectively. There is a 3.2-5.3% decrease in performance of both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 when accessing the LLM through its API instead of its online chatbot. There is 4.5-7.5% increase in performance of both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 accessed through their APIs after additional input augmentation. The blinded reviewer correctly identified the human generated MKSAP response in 72% of the 25-question sample set. GPT-4.0 performed best on IM board-style questions outperforming human respondents. Augmenting with domain-specific information improved performance rendering Retrieval Augmented Generation a possible technique for improving accuracy in medical examination LLM responses.
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.