Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39819381›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2025

Performance Evaluation and Implications of Large Language Models in Radiology Board Exams: Prospective Comparative Analysis.

Boxiong Wei

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

1 author.

Boxiong WeiDepartment of Ultrasound, Peking University First Hospital, 8 Xishiku Rd, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China, 86 13132150190, 86 314521.ORCID 0000-0001-6206-9319

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence advancements have enabled large language models to significantly impact radiology education and diagnostic accuracy. Objective: This study evaluates the performance of mainstream large language models, including GPT-4, Claude, Bard, Tongyi Qianwen, and Gemini Pro, in radiology board exams. Methods: A comparative analysis of 150 multiple-choice questions from radiology board exams without images was conducted. Models were assessed on their accuracy for text-based questions and were categorized by cognitive levels and medical specialties using χ2 tests and ANOVA. Results: GPT-4 achieved the highest accuracy (83.3%, 125/150), significantly outperforming all other models. Specifically, Claude achieved an accuracy of 62% (93/150; P<.001), Bard 54.7% (82/150; P<.001), Tongyi Qianwen 70.7% (106/150; P=.009), and Gemini Pro 55.3% (83/150; P<.001). The odds ratios compared to GPT-4 were 0.33 (95% CI 0.18-0.60) for Claude, 0.24 (95% CI 0.13-0.44) for Bard, and 0.25 (95% CI 0.14-0.45) for Gemini Pro. Tongyi Qianwen performed relatively well with an accuracy of 70.7% (106/150; P=0.02) and had an odds ratio of 0.48 (95% CI 0.27-0.87) compared to GPT-4. Performance varied across question types and specialties, with GPT-4 excelling in both lower-order and higher-order questions, while Claude and Bard struggled with complex diagnostic questions. Conclusions: GPT-4 and Tongyi Qianwen show promise in medical education and training. The study emphasizes the need for domain-specific training datasets to enhance large language models' effectiveness in specialized fields like radiology.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEducational MeasurementRadiologyClinical CompetenceHumansLarge Language ModelsProspective StudiesAIartificial intelligencediagnosticsGPT-4large language modelsLLMmedical educationmedical trainingradiologyradiology examsultrasound

Identifiers

PMID39819381
PMCPMC11756834

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.