ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2026
Performance of large language models on the Japanese cardiovascular surgery board examination: a comparative analysis of eight contemporary AI models with educational implications.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
objectiveLarge language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance on medical licensing and specialty examinations, but their utility in cardiovascular surgery certification and education remains unknown.
methodsWe evaluated eight LLMs (GPT-5, GPT-4o [OpenAI], Gemini-2.5Pro, Gemini-2.0, Gemma-3 [12B] [Google DeepMind], Claude-4, Claude-3 [Anthropic], and Llama-4 [Scout] [Meta AI]) using their official application programming interfaces as of September 2025. Examination items were obtained from the Japanese Cardiovascular Surgery Board (2021-2024; 523 questions). Texts were extracted from PDFs, images converted to JPEGs, and each question presented with a standardized Japanese prompt. Models produced three responses per item; final answers were determined by majority voting. Accuracy with 95% confidence intervals was calculated, and pairwise comparisons performed using McNemar's test.
resultsAcross 523 items, GPT-5 achieved the highest accuracy (87.4%), followed by Gemini-2.5Pro (85.7%); their performance did not differ significantly. Claude-4 ranked third (80.3%), exceeding the passing threshold in some years. GPT-4o (65.6%) and Gemini-2.0 (58.5%) showed moderate accuracy, whereas Claude-3 (36.9%), Gemma-3 (40.9%), and Llama-4 (52.2%) scored lower. Pairwise testing confirmed a clear stratification: high (GPT-5, Gemini-2.5Pro), upper-intermediate (Claude-4), mid (GPT-4o, Gemini-2.0), and low (others). All models declined with image-based items, with top models reduced to around 70%. Accuracy remained stable across years, with GPT-5, Gemini-2.5Pro, and occasionally Claude-4, surpassing the pass threshold.
conclusionsSuccessive model generations, particularly GPT-5 and Gemini-2.5Pro, consistently achieved passing-level accuracy. These findings highlight substantial gains through model evolution and underscore the potential of LLMs as supplementary tools for specialty education, despite persistent limitations in image-based reasoning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42043642What 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.