ArticleActa neurologica Belgica2026
Humans vs. large language models in neurology board examination: performance, limitations, and reference reliability.
Article in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comment on "Humans vs. large language models in neurology board examination: performance, limitations, and reference reliability".Acta neurologica Belgica · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the performance and reference reliability of three large language models in neurology using a national board examination framework.
methodsA total of 803 validated multiple-choice questions from Turkish National Neurology Board Examinations (2015-2024) were administered to ChatGPT Plus, Gemini Advanced, and Microsoft Copilot Pro using a standardized prompt requiring an answer and a supporting reference. Model performance was compared with overall examinee performance and analyzed by neurological subspecialty, question type, and presence of visual content. References provided for incorrectly answered questions were independently evaluated by three board certified neurologists.
resultsMean accuracy rates were 87% for Gemini, 86% for Copilot, and 85% for ChatGPT, significantly outperforming the human examinee average of 65% (p < 0.001), with no significant differences among models. Accuracy did not differ by question type or neurological subspecialty. All models outperformed examinees on non-visual questions, whereas no performance advantage was observed for visually based items. Reference evaluation revealed substantial limitations: ChatGPT frequently provided insufficient citations (39.6%), while fabricated references predominated in Gemini (53.0%) and Co-pilot (42.1%).
conclusionLarge language models demonstrate high and consistent accuracy on neurology board examination questions, with performance exceeding that of the average examinee. On visually based questions, accuracy was lower than for non-visual items, and the performance advantage over examinees disappeared. High rates of insufficient referencing indicate a clear need for expert oversight, supporting the use of LLMs as complementary tools in neurology education rather than autonomous sources of clinical or academic authority.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42240737What 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.