Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41281362›Full record

ArticleNeurology. Education2025

Education Research: Can Large Language Models Match MS Specialist Training?: A Comparative Study of AI and Student Responses to Support Neurology Education.

Hernan Inojosa, Ahmadreza Ramezanzadeh, Iva Gasparovic-Curtini, Isabella Wiest, Jakob Nikolas Kather, Stephen Gilbert, Tjalf Ziemssen

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology. Education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hernan InojosaCenter of Clinical Neuroscience, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University of Dresden, Germany; and.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1377-836X
Ahmadreza RamezanzadehCenter of Clinical Neuroscience, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University of Dresden, Germany; and.
Iva Gasparovic-CurtiniCenter of Clinical Neuroscience, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University of Dresden, Germany; and.
Isabella WiestElse Kröner Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Technical University Dresden, Germany.
Jakob Nikolas KatherElse Kröner Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Technical University Dresden, Germany.
Stephen GilbertElse Kröner Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Technical University Dresden, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1997-1689
Tjalf ZiemssenCenter of Clinical Neuroscience, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University of Dresden, Germany; and.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8799-8202

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), is increasingly explored for clinical decision support and medical education. While general LLM proficiency on broad medical examinations has been demonstrated, their application of domain-specific knowledge in neurology remains underexplored. This study addresses that gap using multiple sclerosis (MS) as an exemplar, evaluating how LLM information access strategies affect accuracy in a specialized postgraduate curriculum and exploring possible roles of LLMs in neurology education. Methods: A comparative evaluation was conducted using 53 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and 21 open-ended questions drawn from an MS curriculum used in a postgraduate MS program. As a reference, results from postgraduate students-primarily neurologists and neurology trainees-were used. Each question was answered by 3 LLMs: GPT-4o (general-purpose), MS RAG (retrieval-augmented accessing MS literature), and Prof. Valmed (CE-certified domain-specific, trained on medical data). All models operated in the zero-shot mode without previous exposure to the items. Questions were stratified based on students' performance. Accuracy was compared using χ Results: Among LLMs, GPT-4o reached 81.1% accuracy, MS RAG 86.8%, and Prof. Valmed 91.3% while the reference students' cohort (n = 28) achieved a mean of 82% (SD 23%). Although overall differences were not statistically significant (χ Discussion: These findings indicate that while LLMs can perform at levels broadly comparable to postgraduate students, these may be particularly useful on more difficult tasks, where their consistency may complement human reasoning in a neurology subspecialty curriculum. While results should be interpreted cautiously given the limited sample size, this study illustrates possible implications of LLMs in neurology education-for example, as AI tutors for complex topics, as support for formative assessments, or as targeted review resources. Further research should assess integration into educational workflows and decision support.

Identifiers

PMID41281362
PMCPMC12636769

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.