ArticleThe Psychiatric quarterly2026
Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatry Training: Comparative Insights from Nine Large Language Models Across Cultural and Exam Contexts.
Article in The Psychiatric quarterly, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated rapidly improving performance in medical knowledge tasks; however, most comparative evaluations have focused on general medical domains, leaving psychiatry—where contextual reasoning and nuance are critical—relatively underexplored. This study systematically compared the performance of nine LLMs on psychiatry-focused medical examination questions to evaluate their accuracy, reliability, and educational utility.The models tested included ChatGPT-5, ChatGPT-4, Claude Sonnet-4 (free) and Sonnet-4.5 (Pro), Gemini-2.5 Flash and Gemini-2.5 Pro, Grok-3 and Grok-4, and DeepSeek-v3. A total of 100 multiple-choice psychiatry questions were administered, comprising 25 USMLE-type, 25 TUS-type, and 50 expert-authored items. Each model completed five independent testing sessions (4,500 responses total). Statistical analyses assessed overall accuracy, test–retest reliability, and performance differences by exam type.Results showed significant overall variability among models (χ²(8, N = 4,500) = 42.45, p<.001). Claude Sonnet-4.5 Pro achieved the highest accuracy (94%), followed by Gemini-2.5 Pro (92.8%) and GPT-5 (92.6%). DeepSeek-v3 and GPT-4 demonstrated excellent reliability (ICC>0.90), whereas Gemini-2.5 Flash and Grok-4 exhibited only moderate stability (ICC≈0.65). Question format significantly influenced performance (F(2,24) = 16.19, p<.001, η²=0.57): accuracy was lower for USMLE-type items (83.8%) than for TUS-type (95.6%) or expert-authored questions (92.1%). Free and premium models performed comparably on factual tasks, though premium systems showed higher temporal consistency.These findings indicate that current LLMs can achieve high accuracy on psychiatry-focused, exam-style multiple-choice questions, reflecting strong performance in structured factual knowledge tasks rather than clinical competence. High performance on multiple-choice questions should not be interpreted as equivalence to clinical expertise, which requires integrative reasoning, contextual judgment, and interpersonal skills beyond the scope of standardized examinations. Accordingly, free models may be valuable for foundational learning and examination preparation, while premium systems offer greater consistency for repeated educational assessments, without implying readiness for independent clinical application. Psychiatry, requiring empathy and nuanced reasoning, remains an essential domain for testing AI’s progression from factual mastery toward human-centered understanding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41860633What 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.