Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40775272›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2025

Comparative performance of ChatGPT, Gemini, and final-year emergency medicine clerkship students in answering multiple-choice questions: implications for the use of AI in medical education.

Shaikha Nasser Al-Thani, Shahzad Anjum, Zain Ali Bhutta, Sarah Bashir, Muhammad Azhar Majeed, Anfal Sher Khan, Khalid Bashir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Shaikha Nasser Al-ThaniDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, P O Box 3050, Doha, Qatar.
Shahzad AnjumDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, P O Box 3050, Doha, Qatar.
Zain Ali BhuttaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, P O Box 3050, Doha, Qatar.
Sarah BashirUniversity of Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire, UK.
Muhammad Azhar MajeedDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, P O Box 3050, Doha, Qatar.
Anfal Sher KhanWeill Cornell Medicine, Doha, Qatar.
Khalid BashirDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, P O Box 3050, Doha, Qatar. kbashir@hamad.qa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into medical education has gained significant attention, particularly with the emergence of advanced language models, such as ChatGPT and Gemini. While these tools show promise for answering multiple-choice questions (MCQs), their efficacy in specialized domains, such as Emergency Medicine (EM) clerkship, remains underexplored. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of ChatGPT, Gemini, and final-year EM students when it comes to answering text-only and image-based MCQs, in order to assess AI's potential for use as a supplementary tool in the field of medical education.

methodsIn this proof-of-concept study, a comparative analysis was conducted using 160 MCQs from an EM clerkship curriculum, comprising 62 image-based questions and 98 text-only questions. The performance of the free versions of ChatGPT (4.0) and Gemini (1.5), as well as that of 125 final-year EM students, was assessed. Responses were categorized as "correct", "incorrect", or "unanswered". Statistical analysis was then performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 26.0) to compare accuracy across groups and question types.

resultsSignificant performance differences were observed across the three groups (χ² = 42.7, p < 0.001). Final-year EM students demonstrated the highest overall accuracy at 79.4%, outperforming both ChatGPT (72.5%) and Gemini (54.4%). Students excelled in text-only MCQs, with an accuracy of 89.8%, and performed robustly on image-based questions (62.9%). ChatGPT showed strong performance on text-only items (83.7%) but had reduced accuracy on image-based questions (54.8%). Gemini performed moderately on text-only questions (73.5%) but struggled significantly with image-based content, achieving only 24.2% accuracy. Pairwise comparisons confirmed that students outperformed both AI models across all formats (p < 0.01), with the widest performance gap observed in image-based questions between students and Gemini (+ 38.7% points). All AI "unable to answer" responses were treated as incorrect for analysis.

conclusionThis proof-of-concept study demonstrates that while AI shows promise as a supplementary educational tool, it cannot yet replace traditional training methods-particularly in domains requiring visual interpretation and clinical reasoning. ChatGPT' s strong performance on text-based questions highlights its utility, but its limitations in image-based tasks emphasize the need for improvement. Gemini's lower accuracy further highlights the challenges current AI models face in processing visually complex medical content. Future research should focus on enhancing AI's multimodal capabilities to improve its applicability in medical education and assessment.

Identifiers

PMID40775272
PMCPMC12329864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.