ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026
Performance of next-generation AI chatbots in gynecological knowledge assessment: a comparative pilot study of ChatGPT-5, Gemini-3, DeepSeek-V3.2, and Claude-4.5-Opus.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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.
- Beyond accuracy: evaluating the reliability of large language models for medical assessment.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAs artificial intelligence (AI) models evolve into their next generations, their application in specialized medical fields requires rigorous validation. While large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in general medicine, their reliability in complex gynecological clinical reasoning remains under-explored. This pilot study aimed to comparatively assess the knowledge retention, safety, and reasoning limitations of advanced AI chatbots in gynecology using a constrained zero-shot multiple-choice question (MCQ) format.
methodsA total of 70 text-based MCQs covering seven core gynecological modules were adapted from "USMLE Step 1 Sample Test Questions". The questions were administered to four advanced AI models: ChatGPT-5, Gemini-3, DeepSeek-V3.2, and Claude-4.5-Opus. To simulate a rapid-retrieval clinical scenario, models were tested under "zero-shot" conditions with a constrained prompt prohibiting reasoning steps. We performed both quantitative statistical analysis (Kruskal-Wallis, Cochran's Q) and qualitative error analysis to identify specific failure modes.
resultsContrary to expectations for advanced models, overall accuracy was unsatisfactory: Gemini-3 (32.86%), DeepSeek-V3.2 (30.00%), ChatGPT-5 (25.71%), and Claude-4.5-Opus (21.43%). Significant performance disparities were observed across modules. Notably, ChatGPT-5 scored 0.00% in Infertility, while DeepSeek-V3.2 reached 70.00% in Common Benign Conditions. Qualitative analysis revealed three critical failure patterns: (1) semantic association bias (confusing high-probability diseases with symptom-specific diagnoses), (2) spatial anatomy confusion, and (3) genetic logic reversal. No significant correlation was found between item difficulty and accuracy (p > 0.05).
conclusionUnder constrained non-reasoning prompts, even next-generation AI chatbots demonstrate unsatisfactory performance in gynecology. The qualitative analysis suggests that models often rely on probabilistic keyword matching rather than physiological simulation, leading to theoretically dangerous clinical errors (e.g., misdiagnosing adrenal enzymes). While potential exists, current reliability is insufficient for unsupervised use in gynecological education. These findings highlight the critical need for "chain-of-thought" prompting and human expert oversight.
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.