ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026
A Comparative Analysis of GPT-4o and ERNIE Bot in a Chinese Radiation Oncology Exam.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge localization is associated with higher performance of domestic large language models in a Chinese radiation oncology examination.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Comparing large language models and search engine responses to common orthodontic questions.PloS one · 2026Article
- Benchmarking large language models on a Chinese radiation oncology technology examination-preparation question set: accuracy, consensus, and efficiency for AI assisted education.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in medical education and practice, yet their application in niche fields such as radiation oncology remains underexplored. This study evaluates and compares the performance of OpenAI's GPT-4o and Baidu's ERNIE Bot in a Chinese-language radiation oncology examination. We employed the Chinese National Health Professional Technical Qualification Examination (Intermediate Level) for Radiation Oncology, using a question bank of 1128 items across four sections: Basic Knowledge, Relevant Knowledge, Specialized Knowledge, and Practice Competence. A passing score required an accuracy rate of 60% or higher in all sections. The models' responses were assessed for accuracy against standard answers, with key metrics including overall accuracy, section-specific performance, case analysis performance, and accuracy consensus between the models. The overall accuracy rates were 79.3% for GPT-4o and 76.9% for ERNIE Bot (p = 0.154). Across the four sections, GPT-4o achieved accuracy rates of 82.1%, 84.6%, 78.6%, and 60.9%, respectively, while ERNIE Bot achieved 81.6%, 73.9%, 77.9%, and 69.0%. In the Relevant Knowledge section, GPT-4o achieved significantly higher accuracy (p = 0.002), while no significant differences were found in the other three sections. Across various question types-including single-choice, multiple-answer, case analysis, non-case analysis, and different content areas of case analysis-both models exhibited satisfied accuracy, and ERNIE Bot achieved accuracy rates that were comparable to GPT-4o. The accuracy consensus between the two models was 84.5%, significantly exceeding the individual accuracy rates of GPT-4o (p = 0.003) and ERNIE Bot (p < 0.001). Both GPT-4o and ERNIE Bot successfully passed the highly specialized Chinese-language medical examination in radiation oncology and demonstrated comparable performance. This study provides valuable insights into the application of LLMs in Chinese medical education. These findings support the integration of LLMs in medical education and training within specialized, non-English-speaking contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40418520What 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.