SynthesisJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2025
Performance of large language models in medical licensing examinations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Promises and Perils of Clinical Decision Support Artificial Intelligence.The clinical teacher · 2026Article
- Evaluating the accuracy and communication quality of large language models in Ewing sarcoma: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek, and Grok.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Generative artificial intelligence in medical education: from knowledge assessment to clinical reasoning and professional competence.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models on Four Core Medical School Courses: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- From writing paragraphs to evaluating articles: academic vocabulary development in EFL health sciences students during the ChatGPT transition.Frontiers in medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study systematically evaluates and compares the performance of large language models (LLMs) in answering medical licensing examination questions. By conducting subgroup analyses based on language, question format, and model type, this meta-analysis aims to provide a comprehensive overview of LLM capabilities in medical education and clinical decision-making.
methodsThis systematic review, registered in PROSPERO and following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science for relevant articles published up to February 1, 2025. The search strategy included Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords related to ("ChatGPT" OR "GPT" OR "LLM variants") AND ("medical licensing exam*" OR "medical exam*" OR "medical education" OR "radiology exam*"). Eligible studies evaluated LLM accuracy on medical licensing examination questions. Pooled accuracy was estimated using a random-effects model, with subgroup analyses by LLM type, language, and question format. Publication bias was assessed using Egger's regression test.
resultsThis systematic review identified 2,404 studies. After removing duplicates and excluding irrelevant articles through title and abstract screening, 36 studies were included after full-text review. The pooled accuracy was 72% (95% confidence interval, 70.0% to 75.0%) with high heterogeneity (I2=99%, P<0.001). Among LLMs, GPT-4 achieved the highest accuracy (81%), followed by Bing (79%), Claude (74%), Gemini/Bard (70%), and GPT-3.5 (60%) (P=0.001). Performance differences across languages (range, 62% in Polish to 77% in German) were not statistically significant (P=0.170).
conclusionLLMs, particularly GPT-4, can match or exceed medical students' examination performance and may serve as supportive educational tools. However, due to variability and the risk of errors, they should be used cautiously as complements rather than replacements for traditional learning methods.
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.