ArticlePharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Evaluating the Accuracy and Educational Potential of Generative AI Models in Pharmacy Education: A Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT and Gemini Across Bloom's Taxonomy.
Article in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Based Assessment Tools in Pharmacy Education.Research square · 2026Article
- From traditional classroom to AI-enhanced flipped classroom: a three-year pedagogical evolution for international students in pharmacology.BMC medical education · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the accuracy and educational potential of three generative AI models, ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4o, and Gemini 2.5, by addressing pharmacy-related content across three key areas: biostatistics, pharmaceutical calculations, and therapeutics. A total of 120 exam-style questions, categorized by Bloom's Taxonomy levels (Remember, Understand, Apply, and Analyze), were administered to each model. Overall, the AI models achieved a combined accuracy rate of 77.5%, with ChatGPT 4o consistently outperforming ChatGPT 3.5 and Gemini 2.5. The highest accuracy was observed in therapeutics (83.3%), followed by biostatistics (81.7%) and calculations (67.5%). Performance was strongest at lower Bloom levels, reflecting proficiency in recall and conceptual understanding, but declined at higher levels requiring analytical reasoning. These findings suggest that generative AI tools can serve as effective supplementary aids for pharmacy education, particularly for conceptual learning and review. However, their limitations in quantitative and higher-order reasoning highlight the need for guided use and faculty oversight. Future research should expand to additional subject areas and assess longitudinal learning outcomes to better understand AI's role in improving critical thinking and professional competence among pharmacy students.
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.