Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39793017›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025

Qwen-2.5 Outperforms Other Large Language Models in the Chinese National Nursing Licensing Examination: Retrospective Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.

Shiben Zhu, Wanqin Hu, Zhi Yang, Jiani Yan, Fang Zhang

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Automation ofEJNMMI research · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Shiben ZhuDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0846-0453
Wanqin HuSchool of Nursing and Health Studies, Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID 0000-0003-2548-5801
Zhi YangSchool of Nursing and Health Studies, Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID 0009-0007-7354-5879
Jiani YanDepartment of Science and Education, Shenzhen Baoan Women's and Children's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.ORCID 0009-0007-5373-0305
Fang ZhangDepartment of Science and Education, Shenzhen Baoan Women's and Children's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.ORCID 0009-0005-8263-0755

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have been proposed as valuable tools in medical education and practice. The Chinese National Nursing Licensing Examination (CNNLE) presents unique challenges for LLMs due to its requirement for both deep domain-specific nursing knowledge and the ability to make complex clinical decisions, which differentiates it from more general medical examinations. However, their potential application in the CNNLE remains unexplored.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluates the accuracy of 7 LLMs including GPT-3.5, GPT-4.0, GPT-4o, Copilot, ERNIE Bot-3.5, SPARK, and Qwen-2.5 on the CNNLE, focusing on their ability to handle domain-specific nursing knowledge and clinical decision-making. We also explore whether combining their outputs using machine learning techniques can improve their overall accuracy.

methodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed all 1200 multiple-choice questions from the CNNLE conducted between 2019 and 2023. Seven LLMs were evaluated on these multiple-choice questions, and 9 machine learning models, including Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, Multilayer Perceptron, k-nearest neighbors, Random Forest, LightGBM, AdaBoost, XGBoost, and CatBoost, were used to optimize overall performance through ensemble techniques.

resultsQwen-2.5 achieved the highest overall accuracy of 88.9%, followed by GPT-4o (80.7%), ERNIE Bot-3.5 (78.1%), GPT-4.0 (70.3%), SPARK (65.0%), and GPT-3.5 (49.5%). Qwen-2.5 demonstrated superior accuracy in the Practical Skills section compared with the Professional Practice section across most years. It also performed well in brief clinical case summaries and questions involving shared clinical scenarios. When the outputs of the 7 LLMs were combined using 9 machine learning models, XGBoost yielded the best performance, increasing accuracy to 90.8%. XGBoost also achieved an area under the curve of 0.961, sensitivity of 0.905, specificity of 0.978, F

conclusionsThis study is the first to evaluate the performance of 7 LLMs on the CNNLE and that the integration of models via machine learning significantly boosted accuracy, reaching 90.8%. These findings demonstrate the transformative potential of LLMs in revolutionizing health care education and call for further research to refine their capabilities and expand their impact on examination preparation and professional training.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementChinaCross-Sectional StudiesEducation, NursingHumansLanguageLicensure, NursingMachine LearningRetrospective StudiesChatGPTChinese National Nursing Licensing Examinationlarge language modelsLLMsmultiple-choice questionsQwen-2.5

Identifiers

PMID39793017
PMCPMC11759905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.