Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41107409›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Reasoning-based LLMs surpass average human performance on medical social skills.

Khalid Ibraheem Alohali, Laura Asaad Almusaeeb, Abdulaziz Abdulrahman Almubarak, Ahmad Ibraheem Alohali, Ruaim Abdullah Muaygil

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

5 authors.

Khalid Ibraheem AlohaliCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11461, Saudi Arabia. khalid.i.alohali@gmail.com.
Laura Asaad AlmusaeebCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11461, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulaziz Abdulrahman AlmubarakCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11461, Saudi Arabia.
Ahmad Ibraheem AlohaliCollege of Computer and Information Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11461, Saudi Arabia.
Ruaim Abdullah MuaygilAssociate Professor of Healthcare Ethics, Department of Medical Education, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A significant portion of medical licensing examinations assesses key social skills such as communication, ethics, and professionalism, which are vital for quality patient care. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly integrated into healthcare systems in recent years, raising concerns among regulators, providers, and patients regarding AI's capacity to handle complex, human-centered scenarios. Previous work has shown that large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 perform well on social skills questions from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE). However, newer models like GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and o1 have been introduced, with the latter designed to mimic human thinking through a "chain of thought" reasoning, unlike other LLMs that provide instantaneous answers. The impact of reasoning on LLMs' ability to navigate scenarios requiring social skills remains unclear. Here, we evaluate five LLMs: GPT-4, GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and o1-preview, and its full version, o1; using forty USMLE-style social skills questions from the UWORLD question bank covering several categories: communication & interpersonal skills, healthcare policy & economics, system-based practice & quality improvement, and medical ethics & jurisprudence. After each LLM answered, it was subjected to an "Are you sure?" follow-up prompt to test consistency. Our results show that o1, the reasoning model, came out on top with 39 out of 40 correct final answers (97.5%). GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro (87.5%) tied in second place, followed by o1-preview (77.5%) and lastly GPT-4 (75%). All LLMs surpassed the UWORLD question bank's 64% average. Domain-specific analysis revealed that despite having equal overall scores, GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro -developed by two different companies- had varying strengths. GPT-4o demonstrated its greatest strengths in communication & interpersonal skills and patient safety, while Gemini 1.5 Pro achieved perfect scores in healthcare policy & economics, system-based practice & quality improvement, and medical ethics & jurisprudence. Although o1-preview demonstrated strong initial performance, its inconsistency under skepticism; changing answers frequently, primarily to incorrect ones, reduced its overall ranking from second to fourth. This phenomenon was not observed in any other model, including the final o1 release, which maintained consistent, high-level performance. These findings, along with prior work, highlight the potential of LLMs to demonstrate effectiveness at answering knowledge-based social skills questions in a medical context, sometimes surpassing average human performance. As LLMs continue to grow in size and sophistication, their performance is expected to improve further. In particular, the strong performance of reasoning-based LLMs suggests that such architectures hold significant promise for advancing AI's role in socially oriented tasks. These results demonstrate the growing potential for reasoning-based LLMs to complement and enhance clinical training, medical education, and patient care.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceLanguageLicensure, MedicalSocial SkillsCommunicationHumansUnited StatesArtificial intelligenceLarge language models (LLMs)Medical educationMedical ethicsSocial skills

Identifiers

PMID41107409
PMCPMC12534372

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.