ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Accuracy, Reliability, and Bloom's Taxonomy Performance of Seven Large Language Models on Microbiology Questions.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as learning resources in medical education, yet their performance and reliability in microbiology, a discipline with a broad, heterogeneous knowledge base, have not been systematically evaluated across multiple platforms. Objective: To benchmark seven publicly available LLMs on microbiology multiple-choice questions (MCQs), assessing overall accuracy, test-retest reliability, topic-specific performance, and the relationship between cognitive complexity and model performance. Methods: Seven LLMs (Claude 4.6 Sonnet, Gemini 3.0, ChatGPT-5.2, Grok 4, Copilot, DeepSeek V3, and Kimi K2) completed 200 MCQs distributed across 20 microbiology topics and five Bloom's taxonomy levels in three independent sessions separated by 24-hour intervals. A total of 4200 responses were analyzed. Statistical analysis included one-way ANOVA with Tukey's HSD post hoc tests, repeated-measures ANOVA, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and Pearson correlations. Results: The collective mean accuracy was 86.18%. Six of seven systems exceeded the 80% high-competency threshold; Claude (89.83%), Grok (89.50%), and GPT (88.83%) led the group. Gemini (72.33%) was the only underperforming system. Test-retest reliability varied dramatically: Claude achieved excellent ICC (0.966), while Gemini exhibited poor reliability (ICC = 0.290), with session-to-session fluctuations of up to 100 percentage points on individual topics. Microbial Cell (100%) was the easiest topic; Viral Genomics (61.9%) was the most challenging across all systems. A uniform decline at Bloom's Level 4 (Analyze) was observed across all LLMs, with no model exceeding 78%. Conclusion: Contemporary LLMs demonstrate substantial knowledge of microbiology but differ markedly in reliability. Response consistency, alongside accuracy, should be a primary criterion for educational deployment. These findings are specific to microbiology MCQ performance and may not generalize to open-ended clinical reasoning.
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.