ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Performance of large language models in the Chinese National Medical Licensing Examinations and Beyond: Scoping review.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 and DeepSeek have shown potential in medical education and assessment. In China, the Chinese National Medical Licensing Examination (CNMLE) has become a critical benchmark for evaluating LLMs' professional knowledge and reasoning ability in non-English contexts. This scoping review aims to synthesize research evaluating LLM performance on the CNMLE and related Chinese medical examinations, identifying performance trends, methodological gaps, and future directions. A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed and Web of Science were searched on June 12, 2025, using terms related to LLMs and Chinese medical examinations. Studies were included if they evaluated any LLM on national-level Chinese medical exams and reported performance metrics. Two reviewers screened and extracted data. Study quality was assessed using a 12-item checklist covering dataset characteristics, LLM setup, and evaluation methods. Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in the passing rates of different LLMs. 14 studies were included, covering 51 evaluation records across 8 types of Chinese medical examinations, including CNMLE and specialty exams such as critical care, radiation oncology, and ultrasound medicine. Exam years ranged from 2017 to 2024, with a shift toward using recent exams. A total of 9 LLMs were evaluated, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, GPT-4o, ERNIE, DeepSeek-R1, Qwen-72B, Baichuan2-7B, Baichuan2-13B and DISC-MedLLM. GPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1 achieved the highest scores of 552 (92.00%) and 523 (87.20%) in the 2024 CNMLE, respectively, both surpassing the passing threshold. In an exploratory comparison, GPT-4 achieved a higher pass rate than GPT-3.5 with a statistically significant difference, although inconsistencies in datasets, model transparency, and evaluation criteria persist across the included studies. LLMs show improving performance on Chinese medical exams, especially newer models. Nevertheless, future research should prioritize standardized benchmarks, multimodal capabilities, and transparent evaluation to ensure meaningful clinical relevance and educational value.
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.