ArticleJMIR medical education2024
Performance of ChatGPT on Nursing Licensure Examinations in the United States and China: Cross-Sectional Study.
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 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correction: Performance of ChatGPT on Nursing Licensure Examinations in the United States and China: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of artificial intelligence models in intensive care nursing questions: an evaluation of ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Google Gemini.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Large language models in Chinese anesthesiology residency examinations: a comparative analysis of performance, reliability and clinical reasoning.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Applications, attitudes and ethical considerations of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) in nursing education: a scoping review.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Classification of pediatric dental diseases from panoramic radiographs using natural language transformer and deep learning models.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Evaluating the performance of DeepSeek-V3, Doubao, ERNIE 4.5 Turbo and iFLYTEK Spark in the Chinese national nursing licensing examination: a cross-sectional comparative study.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- An Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models in Clinical Nursing: A Scoping Review and Expert Consultation.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Performance of DeepSeek and ChatGPT on the Chinese Health Professional and Technical Examination: A comparative study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Comparison of ChatGPT and DeepSeek on a Standardized Audiologist Qualification Examination in Chinese: Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Observational
- Performance of the Large Language Models on the Chinese National Nurse Licensure Examination: Cross-Sectional Evaluation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Performance Evaluation of 18 Generative AI Models (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity) in 2024 Japanese Pharmacist Licensing Examination: Comparative Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Large Language Models in Nursing Education: Concept Analysis.JMIR nursing · 2025Review
- Comparing generative artificial intelligence platforms and nursing student performance on a women's health nursing examination in Korea: a Rasch model approach.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2025Article
- Performance evaluation of large language models for the national nursing examination in Japan.Digital healthArticle
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
Background: The creation of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT is an important step in the development of artificial intelligence, which shows great potential in medical education due to its powerful language understanding and generative capabilities. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively evaluate and comprehensively analyze ChatGPT's performance in handling questions for the National Nursing Licensure Examination (NNLE) in China and the United States, including the National Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses (NCLEX-RN) and the NNLE. Objective: This study aims to examine how well LLMs respond to the NCLEX-RN and the NNLE multiple-choice questions (MCQs) in various language inputs. To evaluate whether LLMs can be used as multilingual learning assistance for nursing, and to assess whether they possess a repository of professional knowledge applicable to clinical nursing practice. Methods: First, we compiled 150 NCLEX-RN Practical MCQs, 240 NNLE Theoretical MCQs, and 240 NNLE Practical MCQs. Then, the translation function of ChatGPT 3.5 was used to translate NCLEX-RN questions from English to Chinese and NNLE questions from Chinese to English. Finally, the original version and the translated version of the MCQs were inputted into ChatGPT 4.0, ChatGPT 3.5, and Google Bard. Different LLMs were compared according to the accuracy rate, and the differences between different language inputs were compared. Results: The accuracy rates of ChatGPT 4.0 for NCLEX-RN practical questions and Chinese-translated NCLEX-RN practical questions were 88.7% (133/150) and 79.3% (119/150), respectively. Despite the statistical significance of the difference (P=.03), the correct rate was generally satisfactory. Around 71.9% (169/235) of NNLE Theoretical MCQs and 69.1% (161/233) of NNLE Practical MCQs were correctly answered by ChatGPT 4.0. The accuracy of ChatGPT 4.0 in processing NNLE Theoretical MCQs and NNLE Practical MCQs translated into English was 71.5% (168/235; P=.92) and 67.8% (158/233; P=.77), respectively, and there was no statistically significant difference between the results of text input in different languages. ChatGPT 3.5 (NCLEX-RN P=.003, NNLE Theoretical P<.001, NNLE Practical P=.12) and Google Bard (NCLEX-RN P<.001, NNLE Theoretical P<.001, NNLE Practical P<.001) had lower accuracy rates for nursing-related MCQs than ChatGPT 4.0 in English input. English accuracy was higher when compared with ChatGPT 3.5's Chinese input, and the difference was statistically significant (NCLEX-RN P=.02, NNLE Practical P=.02). Whether submitted in Chinese or English, the MCQs from the NCLEX-RN and NNLE demonstrated that ChatGPT 4.0 had the highest number of unique correct responses and the lowest number of unique incorrect responses among the 3 LLMs. Conclusions: This study, focusing on 618 nursing MCQs including NCLEX-RN and NNLE exams, found that ChatGPT 4.0 outperformed ChatGPT 3.5 and Google Bard in accuracy. It excelled in processing English and Chinese inputs, underscoring its potential as a valuable tool in nursing education and clinical decision-making.
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.