Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41658821›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

A Comparative Evaluation of GPT-4 Turbo and Gemini-Pro in Medical Licensing Exams: Enhancing Artificial Intelligence's Role in Medical Education.

Tom T Sussan, Rami J Sussan, Adli G Atkinson, Isaac H Atkinson, Kayle Cunningham, Joshua Eckroth, Leonard B Miller, Tao Wei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 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. Article
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

8 authors.

Tom T SussanDepartment of Computer Science, Stetson University, Deland, USA.
Rami J SussanCardiology, Florida International University, Miami, USA.
Adli G AtkinsonMedical Education, Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, Bradenton, USA.
Isaac H AtkinsonMedical Education, Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, Bradenton, USA.
Kayle CunninghamMedical Education, Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, Bradenton, USA.
Joshua EckrothDepartment of Computer Science, Stetson University, Deland, USA.
Leonard B MillerDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Tao WeiCollege of Medicine, Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, Bradenton, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored as adjuncts to medical education; however, comparative data on the performance and error patterns of newer models on standardized licensing-style questions remain limited. This study evaluated two advanced large language models (LLMs) - Gemini-Pro and GPT-4 Turbo - on the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Step 1-style multiple-choice questions to assess accuracy, reasoning quality, and common failure modes relevant to exam preparation and clinical reasoning training. Methods A total of 112 NBME Step 1 questions were collected; seven image- or table-dependent items were excluded, yielding 105 text-only questions. Prompts were standardized to include the clinical stem, query, and answer choices and were submitted via Python API to Gemini-Pro and GPT-4 Turbo. Outputs were independently adjudicated by two third-year medical students and one board-certified physician using binary accuracy scoring and structured evaluation of reasoning features (logical reasoning, internal information use, and external knowledge application). Incorrect responses were categorized as logical, informational, or statistical errors. Comparative analyses included raw accuracy calculations and chi-square testing of reasoning-feature distributions. Results GPT-4 Turbo achieved 90.99% accuracy on the January 2024 NBME Step 1 question set, substantially outperforming Gemini-Pro (54.46%). GPT-4 Turbo demonstrated fewer errors overall, with lower logical (16%), informational (4%), and statistical (4%) error rates compared with older baselines reported in the study (e.g., GPT-3.5 logical errors 42%). GPT-4 Turbo incorporated external information in 76% of correct responses versus 25% for Gemini-Pro, and differences in performance metrics between GPT-4 Turbo and Gemini-Pro were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Conclusions GPT-4 Turbo markedly outperformed Gemini-Pro on text-based NBME Step 1 questions, showing higher accuracy, stronger reasoning consistency, and fewer logical/informational failures. These findings support GPT-4 Turbo's potential role as a high-yield supplementary tool for Step 1-style learning and feedback, while underscoring the need for continued refinement and cautious, supervised integration of LLMs into medical education, given persistent (though reduced) error rates.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence and educationboard examchatgptchatgpt 4medical education technologyopenaipreclinical educationusmle examsusmle-style multiple-choice questions

Identifiers

PMID41658821
PMCPMC12882796

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.