Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40046930›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025

Artificial intelligence in healthcare education: evaluating the accuracy of ChatGPT, Copilot, and Google Gemini in cardiovascular pharmacology.

Ibrahim M Salman, Omar Z Ameer, Mohammad A Khanfar, Yee-Hsee Hsieh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 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
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Ibrahim M SalmanDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Omar Z AmeerDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammad A KhanfarDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Yee-Hsee HsiehDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

cardiovascular pharmacologyChatGPTCopilotGoogle Geminimedical educationpharmacy and medicine

Identifiers

PMID40046930
PMCPMC11879995

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.