Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40519433›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Assessing Large Language Models for Medical Question Answering in Portuguese: Open-Source Versus Closed-Source Approaches.

João Abrantes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

João AbrantesImaging Department, Unidade Local de Saúde de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, PRT.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) show promise in medical knowledge assessment. This study benchmarked a closed-source (GPT-4o, OpenAI, San Francisco, CA) and an open-source (LLaMA 3.1 405B, Meta AI, Menlo Park, CA) LLM on 148 multiple-choice questions from the 2023 Portuguese National Residency Access Examination across five clinical domains. Using five distinct prompting strategies, models provided single-best-answer predictions. GPT-4o consistently outperformed LLaMA 3.1 by 7-11% accuracy across all prompts. Chain-of-thought prompting yielded the highest numerical accuracy for GPT-4o, though this improvement was not statistically significant over simpler prompts in post-hoc analyses, while offering minimal benefit when applied to LLaMA 3.1. Both models performed best in pediatrics and less accurately in surgery and psychiatry questions. Bias assessment indicated GPT-4o aligned well with correct answer distributions, unlike LLaMA 3.1, which showed prompt-dependent skew. Closed-source models currently demonstrate higher accuracy on Portuguese medical questions, likely due to extensive training. However, open-source models remain valuable for data control, though domain-focused fine-tuning may be needed for optimal performance in high-stakes applications.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence in medicinelarge language modelsmedical question answeringportuguese languageprompt engineering

Identifiers

PMID40519433
PMCPMC12166901

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.