Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39846415›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2025

Factors Associated With the Accuracy of Large Language Models in Basic Medical Science Examinations: Cross-Sectional Study.

Naritsaret Kaewboonlert, Jiraphon Poontananggul, Natthipong Pongsuwan, Gun Bhakdisongkhram

Abstract read
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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Comparative analysis of language models in addressing syphilis-related queries.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2025
    Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Naritsaret KaewboonlertInstitute of Medicine, Suranaree University of Technology, 111 University Avenue, Nakhon Ratchasima, 30000, Thailand, 66 44223956.ORCID 0009-0004-2035-5631
Jiraphon PoontananggulInstitute of Medicine, Suranaree University of Technology, 111 University Avenue, Nakhon Ratchasima, 30000, Thailand, 66 44223956.ORCID 0009-0000-9566-7737
Natthipong PongsuwanInstitute of Medicine, Suranaree University of Technology, 111 University Avenue, Nakhon Ratchasima, 30000, Thailand, 66 44223956.ORCID 0009-0002-0555-7767
Gun BhakdisongkhramInstitute of Medicine, Suranaree University of Technology, 111 University Avenue, Nakhon Ratchasima, 30000, Thailand, 66 44223956.ORCID 0000-0001-7434-9262

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has become widely applied across many fields, including medical education. Content validation and its answers are based on training datasets and the optimization of each model. The accuracy of large language model (LLMs) in basic medical examinations and factors related to their accuracy have also been explored. Objective: We evaluated factors associated with the accuracy of LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Google Bard, and Microsoft Bing) in answering multiple-choice questions from basic medical science examinations. Methods: We used questions that were closely aligned with the content and topic distribution of Thailand's Step 1 National Medical Licensing Examination. Variables such as the difficulty index, discrimination index, and question characteristics were collected. These questions were then simultaneously input into ChatGPT (with GPT-3.5 and GPT-4), Microsoft Bing, and Google Bard, and their responses were recorded. The accuracy of these LLMs and the associated factors were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. This analysis aimed to assess the effect of various factors on model accuracy, with results reported as odds ratios (ORs). Results: The study revealed that GPT-4 was the top-performing model, with an overall accuracy of 89.07% (95% CI 84.76%-92.41%), significantly outperforming the others (P<.001). Microsoft Bing followed with an accuracy of 83.69% (95% CI 78.85%-87.80%), GPT-3.5 at 67.02% (95% CI 61.20%-72.48%), and Google Bard at 63.83% (95% CI 57.92%-69.44%). The multivariable logistic regression analysis showed a correlation between question difficulty and model performance, with GPT-4 demonstrating the strongest association. Interestingly, no significant correlation was found between model accuracy and question length, negative wording, clinical scenarios, or the discrimination index for most models, except for Google Bard, which showed varying correlations. Conclusions: The GPT-4 and Microsoft Bing models demonstrated equal and superior accuracy compared to GPT-3.5 and Google Bard in the domain of basic medical science. The accuracy of these models was significantly influenced by the item's difficulty index, indicating that the LLMs are more accurate when answering easier questions. This suggests that the more accurate models, such as GPT-4 and Bing, can be valuable tools for understanding and learning basic medical science concepts.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEducational MeasurementEducation, MedicalCross-Sectional StudiesHumansLarge Language ModelsThailandaccuracyAIartificial intelligenceassessmentbasic medical science examinationChatGPTcross-sectional studydatasetsdifficulty indexGooglelarge language modelLLMmedical educationmedical scienceperformancetool

Identifiers

PMID39846415
PMCPMC11745146

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.