ArticlePloS one2025
Advancing medical AI: GPT-4 and GPT-4o surpass GPT-3.5 in Taiwanese medical licensing exams.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of multimodal large language models on image-based surgical anatomy, anatomical pathology, and radiology questions.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of ChatGPT-5 and DeepSeek on the Chinese ultrasound medicine senior professional title examination.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Performance of ChatGPT-4o in Classifying Idiopathic Epiretinal Membrane Based on Optical Coherence Tomography.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- From Hype to Implementation: Embedding GPT-4o in Medical Education.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), launched by OpenAI in November 2022, features advanced large language models optimized for dialog. However, the performance differences between GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4o in medical contexts remain unclear.
objectiveThis study evaluates the accuracy of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4o across various medical subjects. GPT-4o's performances in Chinese and English were also analyzed.
methodsWe retrospectively compared GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4o in Stage 1 of the Taiwanese Senior Professional and Technical Examinations for Medical Doctors (SPTEMD) from July 2021 to February 2024, excluding image-based questions.
resultsThe overall accuracy rates of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4o were 65.74% (781/1188), 95.71% (1137/1188), and 96.72% (1149/1188), respectively. GPT-4 and GPT-4o outperformed GPT-3.5 across all subjects. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference between GPT-3.5 and the other models (p < 0.05) but no significant difference between GPT-4 and GPT-4o. Among subjects, physiology had a significantly higher error rate (p < 0.05) than the overall average across all three models. GPT-4o's accuracy rates in Chinese (98.14%) and English (98.48%) did not differ significantly.
conclusionsGPT-4 and GPT-4o exceed the accuracy threshold for Taiwanese SPTEMD, demonstrating advancements in contextual comprehension and reasoning. Future research should focus on responsible integration into medical training 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.