ArticleBMC nursing2026
Comparative performance of artificial intelligence models in intensive care nursing questions: an evaluation of ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Google Gemini.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe complexity and rapidly evolving nature of critical patient care in Intensive Care Units underscore the importance of the accuracy and timeliness of nursing decisions, further highlighting the significance of nursing education. This study aims to examine the accuracy of four generative artificial intelligence tools (ChatGPT 5.0 Plus, ChatGPT 5.0, DeepSeek, and Google Gemini) in answering multiple-choice questions related to the intensive care nursing exam, a fundamental area in nursing education.
methodsIn the study, the ChatGPT 5.0 Plus, ChatGPT 5.0, DeepSeek, and Google Gemini models were evaluated using a test data set consisting of 55 questions. The questions were classified according to their difficulty levels as easy (n = 16), medium (n = 17), and difficult (n = 22). The models' correct response rates and standard or unique correct/incorrect response distributions were examined. Computer-assisted statistical analysis used the Chi-square, one-way ANOVA, and Post-hoc Tukey tests. The study was reported according to STROBE.
resultsAccording to the study results, the success rates of all models were similar for easy and medium-level questions (70-82%), and the difference between them was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Under difficult questions, however, the performance of the models diverged significantly, with Google Gemini achieving the highest success rate at 77.27% and DeepSeek showing the lowest performance at 45.45%. The chi-square analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the correct/incorrect distribution among the models (χ²=3.69; p = 0.296), but at the observational level, Google Gemini had a higher number of unique correct answers (n = 6) compared to the other models. ChatGPT 5.0 was found to have no unique errors.
conclusionIn conclusion, while AI models generally showed similar levels of success in intensive care nursing exam questions, Google Gemini demonstrated superior performance in difficult questions, and DeepSeek showed the lowest level of success among the models. The study provides an essential comparative framework regarding the usability of AI-based learning and assessment tools in nursing education. It offers guidance for the future development of AI-based educational technologies. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.