ArticlePloS one2026
Evaluation of large language models in medical examinations: A scoping review protocol.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of ChatGPT, Claude, and AMBOSS on the European Board of Urology In-Service Assessment and Alignment With the European Association of Urology 2025 Guidelines: Comparative Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a large language model for clinician-facing preoperative cost-communication preparation in total knee arthroplasty.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStandardized medical examinations, used to assess trainee clinical competencies, provide a rigorous means to verify LLM accuracy and reliability in medical contexts. Although current evaluations use these exams to test LLMs' clinical reasoning, significant performance variations occur across different clinical scenarios. Existing methods struggle to adapt to evolving research needs. This study synthesizes prior research on LLMs in medical exams, highlighting current limitations and proposing future research directions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The formulation of the protocol was guided by the standards set forth in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Following the establishment of precise inclusion/exclusion criteria and search strategies, we will execute systematic searches in the PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection databases. The method encompasses literature review, data extraction, analytical frameworks, and process mapping. By employing this method, researchers maintain methodological rigor during the entire research process. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol describes a method for performing a scoping review. The investigation focuses on the organized synthesis and examination of previously published research. It does not include human/animal experimentation or sensitive data collection. Ethical approval is not required for this literature-based study.
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.