ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
Performance of the Large Language Models on the Chinese National Nurse Licensure Examination: Cross-Sectional Evaluation Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating the performance of DeepSeek-V3, Doubao, ERNIE 4.5 Turbo and iFLYTEK Spark in the Chinese national nursing licensing examination: a cross-sectional comparative study.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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
Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored in nursing education, but their capabilities in specialized, high-stakes, culturally specific examinations, such as the Chinese National Nurse Licensure Examination (CNNLE), remain underevaluated, making rigorous evaluation crucial before their adoption in nursing training and practice. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the performance, accuracy, repeatability, confidence, and robustness of 4 LLMs on the CNNLE. Methods: Four LLMs (Sider Fusion [Vidline Inc], GPT-4o [OpenAI], Gemini 2.0 Pro [Google DeepMind], and DeepSeek V3) were tested on 237 multiple-choice questions from the 2024 CNNLE. Accuracy and repeatability were assessed using 2 prompting strategies. Confidence was evaluated via self-ratings (1-10 scale) and robustness via repeated adversarial prompting. Results: DeepSeek V3 and Gemini 2.0 Pro demonstrated significantly higher overall accuracy (ranging from 199/237 to 209/237; >83%) compared to GPT-4o and Sider Fusion (ranging from 151/237 to 166/237; <71%). However, all LLMs showed suboptimal repeatability (highest at 206/237; <87% consistency). Critically, poor confidence calibration was evident; most models showed high confidence often mismatching actual accuracy (Sider Fusion: P=.01; GPT-4o: P=.03; and Gemini 2.0 Pro: P=.049). A stability-flexibility trade-off paradox was also observed. Conclusions: While some LLMs show promising accuracy on the CNNLE, fundamental reliability limitations (poor confidence calibration and inconsistent repeatability) hinder safe application in nursing education and practice. Future LLM development must prioritize trustworthiness and calibrated reliability over surface accuracy.
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.