ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2025
Benchmarking open-source large language models on Portuguese Revalida multiple-choice questions.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of Large Language Models on the Brazilian National Medical Education Examination: Comparative Benchmark Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- A Survey on Medical Competence Evaluation Benchmarks for Large Language Models.Health care science · 2026Review
- Evaluating AI performance in pediatric surgery: temporal bias and multimodal limitations in large language model assessment.Pediatric surgery international · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study aimed to evaluate the top large language models (LLMs) in validated medical knowledge tests in Portuguese.
methodsThis study compared 31 LLMs in the context of solving the national Brazilian medical examination test. The research compared the performance of 23 open-source and 8 proprietary models across 399 multiple-choice questions.
resultsAmong the smaller models, Llama 3 8B exhibited the highest success rate, achieving 53.9%, while the medium-sized model Mixtral 8×7B attained a success rate of 63.7%. Conversely, larger models like Llama 3 70B achieved a success rate of 77.5%. Among the proprietary models, GPT-4o and Claude Opus demonstrated superior accuracy, scoring 86.8% and 83.8%, respectively.
conclusions10 out of the 31 LLMs attained better than human level of performance in the Revalida benchmark, with 9 failing to provide coherent answers to the task. Larger models exhibited superior performance overall. However, certain medium-sized LLMs surpassed the performance of some of the larger LLMs.
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.