Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40933532›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025

Performance of large language models on veterinary undergraduate multiple-choice examinations: a comparative evaluation.

Santiago Alonso Sousa, Syed Saad Ul Hassan Bukhari, Paulo Vinicius Steagall, Paweł M Bęczkowski, Antonio Giuliano, Kate J Flay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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.

Santiago Alonso SousaDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Syed Saad Ul Hassan BukhariDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Paulo Vinicius SteagallDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Paweł M BęczkowskiDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Antonio GiulianoDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Kate J FlayDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The integration of artificial intelligence, particularly large language models (LLMs), into veterinary education and practice presents promising opportunities, yet their performance in veterinary-specific contexts remains understudied. This research comparatively evaluated the performance of nine advanced LLMs (ChatGPT o1Pro, ChatGPT 4o, ChatGPT 4.5, Grok 3, Gemini 2, Copilot, DeepSeek R1, Qwen 2.5 Max, and Kimi 1.5) on 250 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) sourced from a veterinary undergraduate final qualifying examination. Questions spanned various species, clinical topics and reasoning stages, and included both text-based and image-based formats. ChatGPT o1Pro and ChatGPT 4.5 achieved the highest overall performance, with correct response rates of 90.4 and 90.8% respectively, demonstrating strong agreement with the gold standard across most categories, while Kimi 1.5 showed the lowest performance at 64.8%. Performance consistently declined with increased question difficulty and was generally lower for image-based than text-based questions. OpenAI models excelled in visual interpretation compared to previous studies. Disparities in performance were observed across specific clinical reasoning stages and veterinary subdomains, highlighting areas for targeted improvement. This study underscores the promising role of LLMs as supportive tools for quality assurance in veterinary assessment design and indicates key factors influencing their performance, including question difficulty, format, and domain-specific training data.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceassessmentcomparative analysislarge language modelsquality assuranceveterinary education

Identifiers

PMID40933532
PMCPMC12418517

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.