Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42675170›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026

Evaluating foundation models on official German medical licensing examinations: Implications for high-stakes assessment and AI-assisted medical education.

Lasse Cirkel, Johannes Knitza, Volker Schillings, Alexander Oksche, Jan Carl Becker, Sebastian Kuhn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lasse CirkelMarburg University, Institute for Digital Medicine, Marburg, Germany. lasse.cirkel@gmail.com.
Johannes KnitzaMarburg University, Institute for Digital Medicine, Marburg, Germany.
Volker SchillingsGerman Institute for State Examinations in Medicine, Pharmacy, Dentistry and Psychotherapy (IMPP), Mainz, Germany.
Alexander OkscheGerman Institute for State Examinations in Medicine, Pharmacy, Dentistry and Psychotherapy (IMPP), Mainz, Germany.
Jan Carl BeckerGerman Institute for State Examinations in Medicine, Pharmacy, Dentistry and Psychotherapy (IMPP), Mainz, Germany.
Sebastian KuhnMarburg University, Institute for Digital Medicine, Marburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We evaluated proprietary and open-weight foundation models on 24 German medical licensing examinations (2019-2024), including 7485 items and response data from 119,878 sittings. For fair comparison, the eight vision-capable models were evaluated on the full benchmark and all thirteen on a shared text-only subset. On the full benchmark, Gemini 3.1 Pro achieved the highest overall accuracy, reaching 99.31% on the first (M1) and 98.37% on the second (M2) examination. On the shared text-only subset, proprietary frontier models performed at near-ceiling levels, several open-weight models (including GLM-5 and DeepSeek V3.2-Thinking) were highly competitive, and even compact ones exceeded mean student performance. Image-present items were more difficult for both students and models, but the associated decline was disproportionately larger for models than for students. Human- and model-defined difficulty subsets showed limited overlap, and model-hard subsets revealed residual differences among top systems. These findings underscore the rapid progress of these models, particularly open-weight systems, and the value of official German medical licensing examinations as a restricted-access benchmark with reduced public exposure. They carry implications for high-stakes assessment and AI-assisted medical education, notably multimodal assessment, human-aligned educational tools, and privacy-preserving local deployment.

Identifiers

PMID42675170
PMCPMC13529676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.