Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41846896›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026

Performance of large language models on sleep medicine certification examination: a comprehensive multi-model analysis.

Abdurrahman Koç, Abdullah Enes Ataş, Şebnem Yosunkaya, Hülya Vatansev

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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

4 authors.

Abdurrahman KoçDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Meram State Hospital, Konya, Türkiye.
Abdullah Enes AtaşDepartment of Radiology, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Türkiye.
Şebnem YosunkayaDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Türkiye.
Hülya VatansevDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the performance of nine contemporary LLM configurations on sleep medicine certification examination-aligned questions, analyzing version differences, pricing tiers, and subdomain competencies. Methods: Cross-sectional comparative analysis of 197 multiple-choice questions structured according to American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) certification standards. Nine LLM configurations were evaluated: ChatGPT (GPT-3.5 free, GPT-4o paid), Gemini (2.5 Flash free, 2.5 Pro paid), Claude (3.7 Sonnet previous, Opus 4 paid), Deepseek V3 (free), xAI Grok3 (free), and Llama 3 (free). Each question was posed three times in independent sessions to minimize response variance. The first complete response from each iteration was recorded, and final accuracy was determined using strict 3/3 concordance criterion (correct only when all three iterations yielded identical correct answers). While alternative scoring approaches exist (single-try accuracy, 2/3 majority voting), the strict concordance method was selected as primary metric to minimize stochastic variation and ensure robust performance estimates. Supplementary analyses using majority voting (2/3) yielded consistent model rankings with marginally higher absolute accuracy values. Performance metrics included overall accuracy rates, 95% confidence intervals, and subdomain-specific analyses across seven sleep medicine categories. Statistical analyses employed Pearson's chi-square test for heterogeneity and McNemar's test for pairwise comparisons. This text-based simulation evaluated model performance on certification-style questions, though it does not replicate actual clinical examination conditions. Results: Model performance demonstrated significant heterogeneity ( Conclusion: Contemporary LLMs demonstrate substantially improved performance compared to previous evaluations, with premium models exceeding the 80% reference benchmark. However, these results reflect performance on a certification-aligned question bank rather than the official board examination itself. The significant performance advantage of paid versions raises important considerations regarding equitable access to AI-enhanced medical education and clinical decision support tools.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecertification examinationlarge language modelsmedical educationsleep medicine

Identifiers

PMID41846896
PMCPMC12989592

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.