ArticleJMIR medical education2025
Large Language Models in Biochemistry Education: Comparative Evaluation of Performance.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of Seven Large Language Models on Anatomy Examination Questions.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Medical students' attitudes, usage patterns, and associated factors with DeepSeek adoption in education: a cross-sectional study in China.BMC medical education · 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
- Awareness, attitudes, and educational use of artificial intelligence among medical students: a large cross-sectional survey.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Visual recognition limitations in multimodal large language models: A comparative analysis of histological image interpretation.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Textbook-level medical knowledge in large language models: comparative evaluation using Japanese National Medical Examination.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- A Comparative Analysis of AI-Language Models' MCQ Performance versus Medical Students Across Different Pediatric Topics.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Accuracy, Reliability, and Bloom's Taxonomy Performance of Seven Large Language Models on Microbiology Questions.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- The Evolving Landscape of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education: A Bibliometric Analysis of Trends, Omics Integration, and Future Directions.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- When AI models take the exam: large language models vs medical students on multiple-choice course exams.Medical education online · 2025Article
- Evaluating large language models as graders of medical short answer questions: a comparative analysis with expert human graders.Medical education online · 2025Article
- Large language models in medical education: a comparative cross-platform evaluation in answering histological questions.Medical education online · 2025Article
- Article
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
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
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.