ArticleJMIR medical education2025
Performance Evaluation and Implications of Large Language Models in Radiology Board Exams: Prospective Comparative Analysis.
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.
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.
- Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT-4o's and DeepSeek R1's responses to urological problems: a comparative study.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary expert evaluation of large language models on questions regarding bariatric surgery: a comparative analysis of ERNIE Bot 4.0, ChatGPT-4, Claude 3 Opus, and Gemini Pro.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- LEAPPT: Leveraging gEnerative Artificial Intelligence-Pediatric Pulmonology Training. Curriculum and content development.ATS scholar · 2026Article
- Evaluating Large Language Models as Medical Consultation Tools for Double Eyelid Surgery: A Cross-Language Study in English and Chinese.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- A Comparative Analysis of AI-Language Models' MCQ Performance versus Medical Students Across Different Pediatric Topics.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Assessment of vaccine information accuracy across large language models.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Few-Shot AI-Generated Feedback on Case Reports in Physical Therapy Education: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- A multi-agent approach to neurological clinical reasoning.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Evolution of AI in anatomy education study based on comparison of current large language models against historical ChatGPT performance.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Performance of Large Language Models in Recognizing Brain MRI Sequences: A Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT-4o, Claude 4 Opus, and Gemini 2.5 Pro.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparison of responses from different artificial intelligence-powered chatbots regarding the All-on-four dental implant concept.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Evaluation of multiple generative large language models on neurology board-style questions.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT's performance on emergency medicine board examination questions.Turkish journal of emergency medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.