ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Artificial intelligence in healthcare education: evaluating the accuracy of ChatGPT, Copilot, and Google Gemini in cardiovascular pharmacology.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Information Quality and Semantic Stability of AI Chatbot Responses to Complete Denture Questions: A Turkish-English Benchmarking Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ability of Large Language Models to Answer Patients' Questions and Generate Educational Materials for Uncommon Retinal Conditions.Journal of vitreoretinal diseases · 2026Article
- LLM-based generation of USMLE-style questions with ASPET/AMSPC knowledge objectives: All RAGs and no riches.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Performance of Large Language Models in Answering Healthcare Delivery Questions: A Quantitative Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Arabic-Language AI Chatbot Responses to Migraine-Related Questions: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language model`s performance in answering principles of health course questions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessment of Stage Two Hypertension Treatment Plans Written by Generative AI.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the clinical decision-making performance of large language models in clinically oriented thoracic anatomy scenarios: a comparative evaluation study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- SPOT THE BOT: A comparative quality assessment of AI-generated written instructions for lung ultrasound training.The ultrasound journal · 2026Article
- Evaluation of AI language models in answering pregnancy-related questions assessed by obstetrics specialists.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of large language models in a pulmonology outpatient clinic using structured clinical data and chest radiographs: a single-center prospective observational study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating AI Chatbots in Prosthodontics Education: A Quantitative MCQ-Based Assessment.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Article
- Assessing AI-Generated Autism Information for Healthcare Use: A Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Geographic Evaluation of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Accuracy and Reliability of Responses Generated by Artificial Intelligence Related to Clinical Pharmacology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Diagnostic performance of four AI tools in pharmacology MCQs: Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.PloS one · 2025Article
- Evaluating AI performance in infectious disease education: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT, Google Bard, Perplexity AI, Microsoft Copilot, and Meta AI.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Performance of large language models in fluoride-related dental knowledge: a comparative evaluation study of ChatGPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Copilot, and Grok 3.Journal of Yeungnam medical science · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing medical education; however, its limitations remain underexplored. This study evaluated the accuracy of three generative AI tools-ChatGPT-4, Copilot, and Google Gemini-in answering multiple-choice questions (MCQ) and short-answer questions (SAQ) related to cardiovascular pharmacology, a key subject in healthcare education. Methods: Using free versions of each AI tool, we administered 45 MCQs and 30 SAQs across three difficulty levels: easy, intermediate, and advanced. AI-generated answers were reviewed by three pharmacology experts. The accuracy of MCQ responses was recorded as correct or incorrect, while SAQ responses were rated on a 1-5 scale based on relevance, completeness, and correctness. Results: ChatGPT, Copilot, and Gemini demonstrated high accuracy scores in easy and intermediate MCQs (87-100%). While all AI models showed a decline in performance on the advanced MCQ section, only Copilot (53% accuracy) and Gemini (20% accuracy) had significantly lower scores compared to their performance on easy-intermediate levels. SAQ evaluations revealed high accuracy scores for ChatGPT (overall 4.7 ± 0.3) and Copilot (overall 4.5 ± 0.4) across all difficulty levels, with no significant differences between the two tools. In contrast, Gemini's SAQ performance was markedly lower across all levels (overall 3.3 ± 1.0). Conclusion: ChatGPT-4 demonstrates the highest accuracy in addressing both MCQ and SAQ cardiovascular pharmacology questions, regardless of difficulty level. Copilot ranks second after ChatGPT, while Google Gemini shows significant limitations in handling complex MCQs and providing accurate responses to SAQ-type questions in this field. These findings can guide the ongoing refinement of AI tools for specialized medical education.
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.