SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2024
The Accuracy and Capability of Artificial Intelligence Solutions in Health Care Examinations and Certificates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 7 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence in Undergraduate Health Professions Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.JMIR medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Large language models in healthcare: applications, evaluation frameworks, and governance pathways - a scoping review and multidimensional framework.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence (AI) for social innovation in health education: promoting health literacy through personalized ai-driven learning tools - a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- 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
- Effectiveness of generative artificial intelligence-based teaching versus traditional teaching methods in medical education: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Performance of large language models in medical licensing examinations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2025Pooled it
- The Accuracy and Capability of Artificial Intelligence Solutions in Health Care Examinations and Certificates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Safety-Oriented Evaluation of Large Language Models in Health Care: Guideline-Informed Systematic Review.Online journal of public health informatics · 2026Review
- Performance of GPT-4o and Claude in Medical Ethics Scenarios: Comparative Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- AI in respiratory care: findings from the GOLD report.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT-4o in oral and maxillofacial surgery examinations: a comparative study of performance on U.S. dental decks and chinese dental licensing examination practice questions.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Automated Approaches of Text Simplification of Patient Education Materials: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Review
- AI-Powered Clinical Decision Support in Dentistry: Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Models for Oral Medicine and Periodontal Diagnosis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Analysis of multimodal large language models on visually-based questions in the Japanese National Examination for Dental Hygienists: A preliminary comparative study.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- Performance of artificial intelligence chatbots in National dental licensing examination.Journal of dental sciences · 2025Article
- The performance of ChatGPT on medical image-based assessments and implications for medical education.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Automatic- and Transformer-Based Automatic Item Generation: A Critical Review.Journal of Intelligence · 2025Review
- A systematic review of early evidence on generative AI for drafting responses to patient messages.npj health systems · 2025Article
- Application of Large Language Models in Stroke Rehabilitation Health Education: 2-Phase Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have dominated public interest due to their apparent capability to accurately replicate learned knowledge in narrative text. However, there is a lack of clarity about the accuracy and capability standards of LLMs in health care examinations.
objectiveWe conducted a systematic review of LLM accuracy, as tested under health care examination conditions, as compared to known human performance standards.
methodsWe quantified the accuracy of LLMs in responding to health care examination questions and evaluated the consistency and quality of study reporting. The search included all papers up until September 10, 2023, with all LLMs published in English journals that report clear LLM accuracy standards. The exclusion criteria were as follows: the assessment was not a health care exam, there was no LLM, there was no evaluation of comparable success accuracy, and the literature was not original research.The literature search included the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms used in all possible combinations: "artificial intelligence," "ChatGPT," "GPT," "LLM," "large language model," "machine learning," "neural network," "Generative Pre-trained Transformer," "Generative Transformer," "Generative Language Model," "Generative Model," "medical exam," "healthcare exam," and "clinical exam." Sensitivity, accuracy, and precision data were extracted, including relevant CIs.
resultsThe search identified 1673 relevant citations. After removing duplicate results, 1268 (75.8%) papers were screened for titles and abstracts, and 32 (2.5%) studies were included for full-text review. Our meta-analysis suggested that LLMs are able to perform with an overall medical examination accuracy of 0.61 (CI 0.58-0.64) and a United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) accuracy of 0.51 (CI 0.46-0.56), while Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) can perform with an overall medical examination accuracy of 0.64 (CI 0.6-0.67).
conclusionsLLMs offer promise to remediate health care demand and staffing challenges by providing accurate and efficient context-specific information to critical decision makers. For policy and deployment decisions about LLMs to advance health care, we proposed a new framework called RUBRICC (Regulatory, Usability, Bias, Reliability [Evidence and Safety], Interoperability, Cost, and Codesign-Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement [PPIE]). This presents a valuable opportunity to direct the clinical commissioning of new LLM capabilities into health services, while respecting patient safety considerations.
trial registrationOSF Registries osf.io/xqzkw; https://osf.io/xqzkw.
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.