Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40209205›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2025

Large Language Models in Biochemistry Education: Comparative Evaluation of Performance.

Olena Bolgova, Inna Shypilova, Volodymyr Mavrych

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 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
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.

Olena BolgovaCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Al Takhassousi St, Riyadh, 11533, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0009-0002-9496-9754
Inna ShypilovaSchool of Medicine, St Mathews University, George Town, Cayman Islands.ORCID 0009-0000-0707-6997
Volodymyr MavrychCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Al Takhassousi St, Riyadh, 11533, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0009-0009-1159-4573

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly in large language models (LLMs), have started a new era of innovation across various fields, with medicine at the forefront of this technological revolution. Many studies indicated that at the current level of development, LLMs can pass different board exams. However, the ability to answer specific subject-related questions requires validation. Objective: The objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive analysis comparing the performance of advanced LLM chatbots-Claude (Anthropic), GPT-4 (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), and Copilot (Microsoft)-against the academic results of medical students in the medical biochemistry course. Methods: We used 200 USMLE (United States Medical Licensing Examination)-style multiple-choice questions (MCQs) selected from the course exam database. They encompassed various complexity levels and were distributed across 23 distinctive topics. The questions with tables and images were not included in the study. The results of 5 successive attempts by Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4-1106, Gemini 1.5 Flash, and Copilot to answer this questionnaire set were evaluated based on accuracy in August 2024. Statistica 13.5.0.17 (TIBCO Software Inc) was used to analyze the data's basic statistics. Considering the binary nature of the data, the chi-square test was used to compare results among the different chatbots, with a statistical significance level of P<.05. Results: On average, the selected chatbots correctly answered 81.1% (SD 12.8%) of the questions, surpassing the students' performance by 8.3% (P=.02). In this study, Claude showed the best performance in biochemistry MCQs, correctly answering 92.5% (185/200) of questions, followed by GPT-4 (170/200, 85%), Gemini (157/200, 78.5%), and Copilot (128/200, 64%). The chatbots demonstrated the best results in the following 4 topics: eicosanoids (mean 100%, SD 0%), bioenergetics and electron transport chain (mean 96.4%, SD 7.2%), hexose monophosphate pathway (mean 91.7%, SD 16.7%), and ketone bodies (mean 93.8%, SD 12.5%). The Pearson chi-square test indicated a statistically significant association between the answers of all 4 chatbots (P<.001 to P<.04). Conclusions: Our study suggests that different AI models may have unique strengths in specific medical fields, which could be leveraged for targeted support in biochemistry courses. This performance highlights the potential of AI in medical education and assessment.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiochemistryEducational MeasurementHumansLarge Language ModelsStudents, MedicalSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesAIartificial intelligencebiochemistrybioenergeticsChatGPTClaudecomprehensive analysisCopilotGeminiGPT-4large language modelLLMmachine learningmedical coursemedical educationmedical studentsMLnatural language processingNLPquestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID40209205
PMCPMC12005600

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.