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.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laboratory Medicine Decision Support-Beyond Exam Passing: A Blinded 100-Case Text-Based Benchmark of Diagnostic Accuracy, Management Quality, and Safety for ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek-LLM Decision Support in Laboratory Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Promise, Mimicry, and Surveillance: Responsibly Integrating Artificial Intelligence With Socratic Inquiry in Medical Education.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of artificial intelligence models in intensive care nursing questions: an evaluation of ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Google Gemini.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Quality of artificial intelligence-generated responses on pediatric celiac disease: Comparative assessment of Open AI ChatGPT and Google Gemini.JPGN reports · 2026Article
- Performance of Large Language Models in the Japanese Public Health Nurse National Examination: Comparative Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR nursing · 2026Article
- Article
- Large language models in emergency medicine education: opportunities, challenges, and implementation pathways.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Comparative Performance of ChatGPT-5 and Gemini 2.5 on the Official Clinical Diabetology Specialty Examination.Cureus · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5, and gemini 2.5 flash on Persian internal medicine subspecialty board exams.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.