ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluation of large Language model performance on Persian rheumatology board exams: accuracy and clinical reasoning of GPT-4o vs. GPT-5.1.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
Large language models are increasingly integrated into medical education, yet their performance in non-English clinical examinations, particularly Persian, remains limited. This study evaluated how GPT-4o and GPT-5.1 perform on Iranian Rheumatology Board examination questions. A total of 204 multiple-choice items were administered in Persian using a similar prompt. Accuracy was determined using the official answer key, and six board-certified rheumatologists independently scored each model’s clinical reasoning on a 1–5 scale. GPT-5.1 demonstrated markedly superior performance, achieving 76% accuracy compared with 64.5% for GPT-4o, alongside significantly higher reasoning scores. Unlike GPT-4o, which showed considerable variability across question types, GPT-5.1 performed consistently across basic science, clinical scenarios, diagnosis, and treatment domains. Although inter-rater agreement among rheumatologists was modest, it remained statistically significant. These findings suggest that newer-generation LLMs provide more reliable reasoning and accuracy in Persian medical assessments. Nevertheless, despite their promising role as educational aids, current models are not yet suitable for high-stakes clinical decision-making and require continued evaluation across diverse languages and specialties.
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.