ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparing the performance of ChatGPT-3.5-Turbo, ChatGPT-4, and Google Bard with Iranian students in pre-internship comprehensive exams.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative performance of ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5, and gemini 2.5 flash on Persian internal medicine subspecialty board exams.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Proficiency, Clarity, and Objectivity of Large Language Models Versus Specialists' Knowledge on COVID-19's Impacts in Pregnancy: Cross-Sectional Pilot Study.JMIR formative 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
This study aims to measure the performance of different AI-language models in three sets of pre-internship medical exams and to compare their performance with Iranian medical students. Three sets of Persian pre-internship exams were used, along with their English translation (six sets in total). In late September 2023, we sent requests to ChatGPT-3.5-Turbo-0613, GPT-4-0613, and Google Bard in both Persian and English languages (excluding questions with any visual content) with each query in a new session and reviewed their responses. GPT models produced responses at varying levels of randomness. In both Persian and English tests, GPT-4 ranked first and obtained the highest score in all exams and different levels of randomness. While Google Bard scored below average on the Persian exams (still in an acceptable range), ChatGPT-3.5 failed all exams. There was a significant difference between the Large Language Models (LLMs) in Persian exams. While GPT-4 yielded the best scores on the English exams, the distinction between all LLMs and students was not statistically significant. The GPT-4 model outperformed students and other LLMs in medical exams, highlighting its potential application in the medical field. However, more research is needed to fully understand and address the limitations of using these models.
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.