Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41618251›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2026

Large language models in Chinese anesthesiology residency examinations: a comparative analysis of performance, reliability and clinical reasoning.

Shuo Wang, Xiaohui Chi, Quanshui Hao, Haiting Wang, Hong Tao, Jing Xiao, Cuicui Wu, Jing Deng, Hui Xu, Rao Sun

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Shuo WangDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hubei Key Laboratory of Geriatric Anesthesia and Perioperative Brain Health, and Wuhan Clinical Research Center of Geriatric Anesthesia, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei, China.
Xiaohui ChiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hubei Key Laboratory of Geriatric Anesthesia and Perioperative Brain Health, and Wuhan Clinical Research Center of Geriatric Anesthesia, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei, China.
Quanshui HaoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Huanggang Central Hospital Affiliated to Yangtze University, Huanggang, 438000, Hubei, China.
Haiting WangDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hubei Key Laboratory of Geriatric Anesthesia and Perioperative Brain Health, and Wuhan Clinical Research Center of Geriatric Anesthesia, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei, China.
Hong TaoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hubei Key Laboratory of Geriatric Anesthesia and Perioperative Brain Health, and Wuhan Clinical Research Center of Geriatric Anesthesia, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei, China.
Jing XiaoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hubei Key Laboratory of Geriatric Anesthesia and Perioperative Brain Health, and Wuhan Clinical Research Center of Geriatric Anesthesia, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei, China.
Cuicui WuDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hubei Key Laboratory of Geriatric Anesthesia and Perioperative Brain Health, and Wuhan Clinical Research Center of Geriatric Anesthesia, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei, China.
Jing DengDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hubei Key Laboratory of Geriatric Anesthesia and Perioperative Brain Health, and Wuhan Clinical Research Center of Geriatric Anesthesia, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei, China.
Hui XuDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hubei Key Laboratory of Geriatric Anesthesia and Perioperative Brain Health, and Wuhan Clinical Research Center of Geriatric Anesthesia, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei, China. huixu@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn.
Rao SunDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hubei Key Laboratory of Geriatric Anesthesia and Perioperative Brain Health, and Wuhan Clinical Research Center of Geriatric Anesthesia, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei, China. raosun@hust.edu.cn.

Funding

Teaching Research Foundation of the Second Clinical College, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology TJJXYJ2024059Teaching Research Foundation of the Second Clinical College, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology TJSZ2024029University-Industry Collaborative Education Program by Ministry of Education 240705236255444University-Industry Collaborative Education Program by Ministry of Education 240805236080042
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough large language models (LLMs) show potential in medical education, their effectiveness in Chinese anesthesiology Standardized Residency Training Program (SRTP) exams remains unexplored. This study aimed to assess the performance, consistency, and clinical reasoning capabilities of LLMs in this specific context.

methodsWe conducted a multidimensional evaluation of three LLMs (GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Gemini 1.5 Pro) using a 210-question Chinese mock SRTP exam. The exam encompassed four types of questions with increasing complexity: A1 (knowledge-recall), A2 (knowledge-application), A3/A4 (multi-step clinical scenarios), and case-analysis (complex reasoning with partial-credit scoring). Each model was tested across 30 repeated iterations to evaluate both accuracy and consistency. Their performance was compared to anonymized results from 32 human SRTP trainees.

resultsAll LLMs exceeded the passing threshold (400/650 points). Among them, Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved the highest mean score (495.4 ± 9.5), followed by Gemini 1.5 Pro (493.8 ± 4.3) and GPT-4o (482.4 ± 10.9). Gemini 1.5 Pro outperformed the others on A1 questions (82.5% median accuracy, P < 0.05 vs. both models) and image-based questions (60% median accuracy, P < 0.001 vs. both models), whereas Claude 3.5 Sonnet excelled in A2 questions (78.3% accuracy, P < 0.01 vs. both models). Performance decreased with increasing question complexity, with median accuracies of 55% for A3/A4 questions and 28.6–33.3% for case-analysis questions. In terms of consistency, Gemini 1.5 Pro answered 64.3% of its questions correctly in all 30 attempts, compared to 51.2% for Claude 3.5 Sonnet (P > 0.05 vs. Gemini 1.5 Pro) and 42.7% for GPT-4o (P = 0.04 vs. Gemini 1.5 Pro). Notably, all LLMs outperformed human trainees, who had an average score of 426.8 ± 25.9 (all P values < 0.001), although the gap narrowed for the most complex questions.

conclusionsState-of-the-art LLMs demonstrate high proficiency on Chinese anesthesiology SRTP exams, surpassing human performance in structured assessments. Their strengths in knowledge recall and potential for scalable feedback make them promising adjuncts for mitigating training disparities. However, the diminished performance in complex clinical reasoning tasks suggests that these models should complement rather than replace human-centric education.

Indexed as

AnesthesiologyClinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementInternship and ResidencyLarge Language ModelsChinaEast Asian PeopleHumansReproducibility of ResultsArtificial intelligenceLarge language modelsMedical educationMedical examinationResidency training program

Identifiers

PMID41618251
PMCPMC12934011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.