ArticleScientific reports2025
Performance evaluation of large language models on Korean medical licensing examination: a three-year comparative analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large Language Models and Their Applications in Mental Health: Scoping Review.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models on Four Core Medical School Courses: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.Advances in medical education and practice · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Performance evaluation of large language models (LLMs) in non-English medical contexts remains limited, particularly for medical licensing examinations including both text- and image-based questions. Therefore, the performance and reliability of three LLMs-GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Gemini 1.5 Pro was evaluated using the Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE) questions from 2022 to 2024. We analyzed 942 KMLE questions encompassing text-only and image-based formats across various medical specialties. Reproducibility was evaluated through repeated testing, and inter-model agreement was analyzed using pairwise comparisons. GPT-4o achieved the highest accuracy (83.2%), followed by Claude 3.5 Sonnet (79.5%) and Gemini 1.5 Pro (76.6%). While GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet outperformed text-only questions, Gemini 1.5 Pro consistently performed across both question formats. LLMs demonstrated the strongest performance in internal medicine, pediatrics, and psychiatry, with relatively weak results in medical law. Reproducibility was outstanding, with Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and GPT-4o showing 99.9%, 99.5%, and 97.7%, respectively. Strong inter-model agreement was observed, particularly between GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet. LLMs demonstrate competent performance in medical knowledge assessments, even in non-English contexts, although challenges persist in processing image-based questions and specialized domains. This study provides valuable insights that may inform the future development and application of LLMs in medical education and assessment, although further validation in real-world educational settings is necessary to establish their practical utility.
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.