Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40140805›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2025

Accuracy of LLMs in medical education: evidence from a concordance test with medical teacher.

Vinaytosh Mishra, Yotam Lurie, Shlomo Mark

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

3 authors.

Vinaytosh MishraDatta Meghe Institute of Higher Education & Research, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India. dr.vinaytosh@gmu.ac.ae.
Yotam LurieBen-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel.
Shlomo MarkShamoon College of Engineering, Ashdod, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Educational MeasurementEducation, MedicalFaculty, MedicalClinical CompetenceHumansLicensure, MedicalUnited StatesGenerative AILLMMachine learningMedical education

Identifiers

PMID40140805
PMCPMC11948841

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.