ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Performance of open-source large language models on nephrology self-assessment program.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance in medical question-answering tasks, highlighting their potential for clinical decision support and medical education. However, their effectiveness in subspecialty areas such as nephrology remains underexplored. In this study, we assess the performance of open-source LLMs in answering multiple-choice questions from the Nephrology Self-Assessment Program (NephSAP) to better understand their capabilities and limitations within this specialized clinical domain. Methods: We evaluated the performance of five open-source large language models (LLMs): PodGPT which a podcast-pretrained model focused on STEMM disciplines, Llama 3.2-11B, Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2, Falcon3-10B-Instruct, and Gemma-2-9B-it. Each model was tested on its ability to answer multiple-choice questions derived from the NephSAP. Model performance was quantified using accuracy, defined as the proportion of correctly answered questions. In addition, the quality of the models' explanatory responses was assessed using several natural language processing (NLP) metrics: Bilingual Evaluation Understudy (BLEU), Word Error Rate (WER), cosine similarity, and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). For qualitative analysis, three board-certified nephrologists reviewed 40 randomly selected model responses to identify factual and clinical reasoning errors, with performance summarized as average error ratios based on the proportion of error-associated words per response. Results: Among the evaluated models, PodGPT achieved the highest accuracy (64.77%), whereas Llama showed the lowest performance with an accuracy of 45.08%. Qualitative analysis showed that PodGPT had the lowest factual error rate (0.017), while Llama and Falcon achieved the lowest reasoning error rates (0.038). Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of STEMM-based training to enhance the reasoning capabilities and reliability of LLMs in clinical contexts, supporting the development of more effective AI-driven decision-support tools in nephrology and other medical specialties.
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.