ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Evaluation of multiple generative large language models on neurology board-style questions.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the performance of eight large language models (LLMs) with neurology residents on board-style multiple-choice questions across seven subspecialties and two cognitive levels. Methods: In a cross-sectional benchmarking study, we evaluated Bard, Claude, Gemini v1, Gemini 2.5, ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-4o, and ChatGPT-5 using 107 text-only items spanning movement disorders, vascular neurology, neuroanatomy, neuroimmunology, epilepsy, neuromuscular disease, and neuro-infectious disease. Items were labeled as lower- or higher-order per Bloom's taxonomy by two neurologists. Models answered each item in a fresh session and reported confidence and Bloom classification. Residents completed the same set under exam-like conditions. Outcomes included overall and domain accuracies, guessing-adjusted accuracy, confidence-accuracy calibration (Spearman Results: Residents scored 64.9%. ChatGPT-5 achieved 84.1% and ChatGPT-4o 81.3%, followed by Gemini 2.5 at 77.6% and ChatGPT-4 at 68.2%; Claude (56.1%), Bard (54.2%), ChatGPT-3.5 (53.3%), and Gemini v1 (39.3%) underperformed residents. On higher-order items, ChatGPT-5 (86%) and ChatGPT-4o (82.5%) maintained superiority; Gemini 2.5 matched 82.5%. Guessing-adjusted accuracy preserved rank order (ChatGPT-5 78.8%, ChatGPT-4o 75.1%, Gemini 2.5 70.1%). Confidence-accuracy calibration was weak across models. Inter-generation scaling was strong within the ChatGPT lineage (ChatGPT-4 to 4o Conclusions: LLMs-particularly ChatGPT-5 and ChatGPT-4o-exceeded resident performance on text-based neurology board-style questions across subspecialties and cognitive levels. Gemini 2.5 showed substantial gains over v1 but with domain-uneven scaling. Given weak confidence calibration, LLMs should be integrated as supervised educational adjuncts with ongoing validation, version governance, and transparent metadata to support safe use in neurology education.
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.