ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Performance of large language models on veterinary undergraduate multiple-choice examinations: a comparative evaluation.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generative AI in Veterinary Pathology: Feasibility of a GPT-Based Assistive Tool for Gross, Cytologic, and Histopathologic Assessment of Canine Cutaneous Neoplasms-A Pilot Study.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Performance evaluation of generative pre-trained transformer on the National Veterinary Licensing Examination in Japan.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in veterinary education: self-perceived knowledge, use, and attitudes among veterinary students in Spain and Portugal.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.