Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41950260›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Performance benchmarking of LLMs on Chinese national medical licensing education: Cross-lingual and question-type effects.

Yuxia Tang, Jian Chen, Shouju Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Yuxia TangDepartment of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0040-6145
Jian ChenDepartment of Radiology, Chongqing Hospital of Jiangsu Province Hospital, Chongqing, China.
Shouju WangDepartment of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe cross-lingual and question-type variations affecting large language models (LLMs) accuracy on the Chinese national medical licensing educations remain insufficiently explored.

methodsIn this cross-sectional study (May 13-20, 2025), 396 educational questions (198 English-Chinese pairs) were extracted from the Chinese national medical licensing examination. ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-o3, Gemini-2.5-pro, Deepseek-V3, Deepseek-R1, and Doubao-1.5-pro were prompted to provide answers. Responses were compared against reference answers, and accuracy was computed for three question types: basic knowledge (Type A), case analysis (Type B), and integrative judgment (Type C).

resultsAcross all question types and languages, Doubao-1.5-pro achieved the highest accuracy at 92.0% ± 1.3%, whereas ChatGPT-4o had the lowest accuracy at 82.8% ± 3.7%. There was a significant main effect of question type (P = 0.0038) but no main effect of language (P = 0.56). Post hoc tests confirmed that Type A performance exceeded Types B and C (P < 0.01), while B vs. C did not differ. Among the models, Doubao-1.5-pro, Deepseek-R1, and Deepseek-V3 demonstrated notable cross-lingual stability, with accuracy differences between Chinese and English versions remaining below 5%.

conclusionThe question type was a key factor affecting LLMs performance on Chinese medical licensing exam questions, whereas language had no significant impact. Doubao-1.5-pro, Deepseek-R1, and Deepseek-V3 demonstrated particularly strong cross-lingual consistency. These findings point to the potential value of specialized LLMs for enhancing medical education in China.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingEducational MeasurementLicensure, MedicalChinaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansLarge Language Models

Identifiers

PMID41950260
PMCPMC13061252

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.