ArticleJMIR medical education2026
Ambiguity Detection in Medical Exams via Large Language Models: Retrospective Cross-Sectional Pilot Study.
Article in JMIR medical education, 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) have emerged as promising tools in medical education due to their ability to understand, generate, and reason with natural language. Their ability to simulate expert reasoning suggests a potential for supporting quality control in assessment design. In this study, the use of LLMs in identifying ambiguous or poorly constructed exam items in critical care academic assessments was evaluated. Objective: The study aimed to develop automated ambiguity and quality scores to objectively assess individual questions and entire exam components. Methods: We analyzed 264 questions from academic exams conducted over 3 academic years (2023-2025) at the Medical School of Université Côte d'Azur. Questions were drawn from 4 docimological formats: progressive clinical cases (PCC), mini-PCC, key feature problems, and isolated question sequences (IQS). Each element was submitted to 4 LLMs (ChatGPT, Gemini Pro, Le Chat, and DeepSeek) without prompt engineering. Performance was evaluated using the official correction key. We applied 4 binary diagnostic tags based on model agreement and self-reported ambiguity: ambiguity, low performance, incoherence, and subjective ambiguity. These tags generated a composite ambiguity score and contributed to a weighted quality score for each exam component. Results: LLMs achieved mean scores in the same range as students, with no significant differences across academic years and significantly higher performance on the mini-PCC and IQS formats (P=.049 and P=.04, respectively). IQS items had the highest ambiguity scores (54 items received a score of 2 in both 2023 and 2024, and 53 items retained the same score). Tag patterns revealed frequent issues with ambiguity and inconsistency. Quality scores varied across academic years. IQS predominantly showed moderate ambiguity (score 2), with occasional instances of strong signals. There was no significant difference in quality based on author specialty or seniority (P=.08 and P=.44, respectively). Conclusions: In this pilot study, LLMs may offer a preliminary framework to proactively detect ambiguous exam questions and estimate the overall quality of an exam. Integrating these tools into the assessment design process could potentially reduce the need for postexam corrections and may help improve fairness and clarity in medical evaluations.
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.