ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
A Comparative Analysis of AI-Language Models' MCQ Performance versus Medical Students Across Different Pediatric Topics.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in medical education, yet their performance in specialized fields like pediatrics remains understudied. Objective: To evaluate and compare the performance of four leading LLMs on a standard set of pediatric multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and benchmark their results against those of medical students. Methods: We assessed 4 leading LLMs: Copilot (Microsoft), Claude (Anthropic), ChatGPT (OpenAI), and Gemini (Google), on 120 MCQs from six pediatric topics: Pulmonology, Developmental Diseases, Infectious Diseases, General Pediatrics, Neonatology, and Nephrology. Each LLM attempted the questions three times to evaluate consistency. Medical student performance on the same questions served as a benchmark, with random responses providing baseline control. Results: The LLMs demonstrated an average accuracy of 80.4±10.9%, outperforming medical students (72.1±13.1%) by 8.3% and exceeding random responses (20.5±6.2%) by nearly fourfold. Copilot (84.5±8.3%) and Claude (84.2±9.9%) achieved the highest accuracy, followed by GPT-4o (80.9±9.1%) and Gemini (72.0±18.9%). Among all LLM-to-student comparisons, only GPT-4o showed a statistically significant difference in accuracy (χ Conclusion: Modern LLMs demonstrate proficiency in pediatric knowledge that generally exceeds medical student performance, though with varying consistency across topics. These findings suggest LLMs may serve as valuable supplementary tools in medical education while highlighting the need for further improvements in specialized medical domains like nephrology and neonatology.
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.