ArticleJMA journal2026
Performance of Reasoning and Comparator Large Language Models on Nephrology Multiple-choice Questions.
Article in JMA journal, 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
Introduction: Performance of large language models in medicine is improving; yet, it remains unclear how the advantage of reasoning models depends on task characteristics in nephrology. Methods: We evaluated four large language models in two families-OpenAI (GPT-5 reasoning and GPT-4o comparator) and Google (Gemini 2.5 Pro reasoning and Gemini 2.0 Flash comparator)-on 209 self-assessment questions for nephrology board renewal published by the Japanese Society of Nephrology. Questions were categorized by question type (general vs. clinical), taxonomy (recall, interpretation, and problem-solving), and image inclusion (non-image vs. image). Models were assessed via application programming interface; no generation parameters were configured; only the model was selected. Images were provided as PNG files. Accuracy used Wilson 95% confidence intervals (CIs); paired comparisons used McNemar's exact test. Primary analyses used logistic generalized linear mixed models with fixed effects, random intercepts, and prespecified interactions. Results: Overall accuracy was 87.6% (183/209, 95% CI 82.4-91.4) for GPT-5 and 83.7% (175/209, 95% CI 78.1-88.1) for Gemini 2.5 Pro versus 69.9% (146/209, 95% CI 63.3-75.7) for GPT-4o and 62.7% (131/209, 95% CI 55.9-69.0) for Gemini 2.0 Flash. Paired analyses favored the reasoning models, with odds ratios of 6.29 for OpenAI and 7.29 for Google (both p <0.001). Adjusted odds ratios for reasoning versus comparator models at the reference strata (general, recall, and non-image questions) were 5.00 for OpenAI and 7.28 for Google (both p <0.001). Interactions showed stronger effects in clinical questions for OpenAI and taxonomy-dependent effects for Google; no significant modification by image inclusion was observed. Conclusions: The reasoning models tested here outperformed their comparator models on nephrology board-style multiple-choice questions, with advantages that varied by question type. These findings support further evaluation of reasoning models as supplementary tools for nephrology board-recertification preparation, while underscoring that direct clinical use requires task-specific validation.
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.