ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2026
Evaluation of the Performance of Advanced Large Language Models in Laboratory Medicine Using Residency Examinations.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance Evaluation of GPT-5, Grok 4, and DeepSeek R1 in Interpreting Complete Blood Count Reports for Hematologic Diseases: Retrospective Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
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
Background: Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have accelerated their integration into clinical domains, including laboratory medicine. The performance of LLMs in answering board-level laboratory medicine questions has not been comprehensively evaluated. Given the importance of diagnostic accuracy in this field, rigorous and objective evaluations of LLM capabilities are essential. Methods: We assessed 12 LLMs from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google using 320 Korean Residency Examination questions (2021-2024) spanning six laboratory medicine subspecialties. Standardized prompts were provided via their application programming interfaces under deterministic settings (temperature=0). Questions were administered thrice to assess response reproducibility. Outputs were compared with validated answers and analyzed for accuracy, reasoning quality, and error typology. Results: Google's Gemini 2.0 Pro achieved the highest accuracy (80.0%), followed by OpenAI's GPT-4.5 (77.2%) and Anthropic's Claude 3.7 Sonnet (74.1%). Accuracy decreased as the difficulty of questions increased (78.0% for easy vs. 45.1% for challenging). Subspecialty performance varied. Al models underperformed on questions on transfusion medicine (mean accuracy: 38.8%), primarily because of limitations in domain-specific and regional knowledge representations. Incorrect answers primarily resulted from reasoning errors. Reproducibility exceeded 95% for most models; however, some residual non-determinism appeared even with greedy decoding (temperature=0). Conclusions: LLMs demonstrated substantial potential for integration into laboratory medicine, particularly in clinical chemistry and immunology. Performance inconsistencies (particularly for high-difficulty questions) and knowledge gaps (notably for transfusion medicine) highlight the necessity for further development-potentially including domain-specific fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation integration-and robust expert oversight before clinical application.
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.