ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Performance of ChatGPT, Claude, and AMBOSS on the European Board of Urology In-Service Assessment and Alignment With the European Association of Urology 2025 Guidelines: Comparative Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent advances in AI, particularly large language models, have generated growing interest in their application to medical education and examination preparation. However, the accuracy, reasoning quality, and adherence to clinical guidelines of these tools in postgraduate urology assessments remain unclear.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the performance of 3 AI tools, ChatGPT (GPT-4.0), Claude (version 4.5), and AMBOSS, on European Board of Urology (EBU)-style multiple-choice questions, with a particular focus on accuracy, insight, concordance, and adherence to European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines.
methodsA total of 200 single-best-answer questions from the EBU In-Service Assessment workbook (2021-2022) were input into each AI model. Models were prompted to select an answer and provide an explanation. Two urologists with post-Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons (FRCS) training independently assessed the outputs. Accuracy was defined as correct answer selection. Concordance was defined as the logical alignment between the answer and its explanation. Insight was evaluated across 3 domains-nonobvious deduction, discriminative reasoning, and clinical validity-and was graded as low, moderate, or high.
resultsChatGPT demonstrated the highest accuracy (171/200, 85.5%), compared to Claude and AMBOSS (both 159/200, 79.5%; P=.14). Concordance was also significantly higher for ChatGPT (190/200, 95%) than for Claude (176/200, 88%) and AMBOSS (152/200, 76%; P<.001). Nonobvious deduction was predominantly low to moderate across all models, reflecting the recall-based nature of many questions. ChatGPT and Claude showed stronger discriminative reasoning, while AMBOSS demonstrated limited exclusion of alternative options. Clinical validity was high overall, with ChatGPT showing the greatest consistency with EAU guidelines. There was substantial agreement between the 2 reviewers (weighted κ coefficient >0.61).
conclusionsAI tools can achieve high accuracy on EBU-style assessments; however, differences in reasoning quality and guideline adherence are evident. ChatGPT demonstrated superior performance across all evaluated domains, supporting its role as a potential adjunct in postgraduate urology education.
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.