Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40290213›Full record

ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2025

Comparison of performance of artificial intelligence tools in answering emergency medicine question pool: ChatGPT 4.0, Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot.

Iskender Aksoy, Merve Kara Arslan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

2 authors.

Iskender AksoyIskender Aksoy Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Giresun University, 28100, Giresun, Turkey.
Merve Kara ArslanMerve Kara Arslan Department of Emergency Clinic, Bulancak State Hospital, 28300, Bulancak, Giresun, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Using artificial intelligence tools that work with different software architectures for both clinical and educational purposes in the medical field has been a subject of considerable interest recently. In this study, we compared the answers given by three different artificial intelligence chatbots to the Emergency Medicine question pool obtained from the questions asked in the Turkish National Medical Specialization Exam. We tried to investigate the effects on the answers given by classifying the questions in terms of content and form and examining the question sentences. Methods: The questions related to emergency medicine of the Medical Specialization Exam questions between 2015-2020 were recorded. The questions were asked to artificial intelligence models, including ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot. The length of the questions, the question type and the topics of the wrong answers were recorded. Results: The most successful chatbot in terms of total score was Microsoft Copilot (7.8% error margin), while the least successful was Google Gemini (22.9% error margin) (p<0.001). It was important that all chatbots had the highest error margins in questions about trauma and surgical approaches and made mistakes in burns and pediatrics. The increase in the error rates in questions containing the root "probability" also showed that the question style affected the answers given. Conclusions: Although chatbots show promising success in determining the correct answer, we think that they should not see chatbots as a primary source for the exam, but rather as a good auxiliary tool to support their learning processes.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceChatGPTCopilotEmergency medicineGeminiMedical education

Identifiers

PMID40290213
PMCPMC12022595

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.