ArticleBMC medical education2025
Accuracy of LLMs in medical education: evidence from a concordance test with medical teacher.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can vision-language models estimate patient age? evidence from panoramic radiographs.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- AI-simulated clinical consultations: Assessing the potential of ChatGPT to support medical training.Archives of disease in childhood · 2026Article
- A Student-Centered Approach Towards Implementing Large Language Models (LLMs) in Medical Education.Medical science educator · 2026Article
- Performance of large language models in answering frequently-asked questions on celiac disease.Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition · 2026Article
- Scaling Multimodal Agentic AI in Medical Education: Multisite Cross-Sectional Study of Simulation Effectiveness in Primary Care.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Performance of 5 AI Models on United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Questions: Comparative Observational Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Hotspot Evolution and Future Prospects of Large Language Models in Medical Education: A Bibliometric Analysis.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Assessing LLM-generated vs. expert-created clinical anatomy MCQs: a student perception-based comparative study in medical education.Medical education online · 2025Article
- Comparative performance of large language models for patient-initiated ophthalmology consultations.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an unprecedented increase in the use of Generative AI in medical education. There is a need to assess these models' accuracy to ensure patient safety. This study assesses the accuracy of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot in answering multiple-choice questions (MCQs) compared to a qualified medical teacher.
methodsThis study randomly selected 40 Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) from past United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) and asked for answers to three LLMs: ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot. The results of an LLM are then compared with those of a qualified medical teacher and with responses from other LLMs. The Fleiss' Kappa Test was used to determine the concordance between four responders (3 LLMs + 1 Medical Teacher). In case of poor agreement between responders, Cohen's Kappa test was performed to assess the agreement between responders.
resultsChatGPT demonstrated the highest accuracy (70%, Cohen's Kappa = 0.84), followed by Copilot (60%, Cohen's Kappa = 0.69), while Gemini showed the lowest accuracy (50%, Cohen's Kappa = 0.53). The Fleiss' Kappa value of -0.056 indicated significant disagreement among all four responders.
conclusionThe study provides an approach for assessing the accuracy of different LLMs. The study concludes that ChatGPT is far superior (70%) to other LLMs when asked medical questions across different specialties, while contrary to expectations, Gemini (50%) performed poorly. When compared with medical teachers, the low accuracy of LLMs suggests that general-purpose LLMs should be used with caution in 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.