ArticleJMIR nursing2026
Performance of Large Language Models in the Japanese Public Health Nurse National Examination: Comparative Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in JMIR nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising results on Japanese national medical and nursing examinations. However, no study has evaluated LLM performance on the Japanese Public Health Nurse National Examination, which requires specialized knowledge in community health and public health nursing practice. Objective: This study aimed to compare the performance of multiple LLMs on the Japanese Public Health Nurse National Examination and evaluate their potential utility in public health nursing education. Methods: Three LLMs were evaluated: GPT-4o, Claude Opus 4, and Gemini 2.5 Pro. All 110 questions from the 111th Public Health Nurse National Examination were administered using standardized prompts. Questions were classified by format (text vs figure or calculation), content (general vs situational), and selection type (single vs multiple choice). Accuracy rates and 95% CIs were calculated, with statistical comparisons performed using chi-square tests. Results: All LLMs exceeded the passing criterion (60%). The accuracy rates were as follows: 85.5% (94/110) for GPT-4o (95% CI 77.5%-91.5%), 91.8% (101/110) for Claude Opus 4 (95% CI 85.0%-96.2%), and 92.7% (102/110) for Gemini 2.5 Pro (95% CI 86.2%-96.8%). No significant differences were found among the LLMs (P>.99). However, all models showed lower accuracy on multiple-choice questions than on single-choice questions, with significant intramodel differences observed for GPT-4o (10/16, 62.5% vs 82/92, 89.1%; P=.01) and Claude Opus 4 (12/16, 75% vs 87/92, 94.6%; P=.03). Conclusions: LLMs demonstrated high performance on a public health nursing examination but showed limitations in complex reasoning requiring multiple-choice selection. These findings suggest the potential for LLM use as educational support tools while highlighting the need for cautious implementation in specialized nursing 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.