ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative performance of ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5, and gemini 2.5 flash on Persian internal medicine subspecialty board exams.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of ChatGPT-assisted and drawing-based learning in enhancing understanding of intraoral radiographic anatomy among dental students: a comparative study.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Comparative evaluation of radiological anatomy knowledge and accuracy of ChatGPT-5, Gemini 2.5, and Grok 4 across normal and thinking modes.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- Article
- A systematic review of the limitations of large language models in generating healthcare content.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Performance stability despite iteration: evaluating DeepSeek and ChatGPT on Chinese medical licensing examinations.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared the performance of ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5, and Gemini 2.5 Flash on the 2025 Iranian internal medicine subspecialty board examinations. A total of 650 multiple-choice questions from six subspecialties were tested, excluding image-based items. Each question was presented in Persian, and responses were evaluated against the official answer key. Accuracy rates were 68.9% for ChatGPT-4o, 74.5% for ChatGPT-5, and 79.9% for Gemini 2.5 Flash, with Gemini performing significantly better than both ChatGPT versions. ChatGPT-5 also showed a significant improvement over ChatGPT-4o, confirming rapid progress in model development. Subspecialty analysis revealed stronger results in rheumatology and respiratory medicine compared to nephrology, while question type and length had no significant impact on outcomes. An artificial neural network that combined the outputs of all three models reached 81.6% accuracy, slightly exceeding Gemini alone. These findings highlight Gemini-2.5 as the most reliable model for this high-stakes internal medicine exam. The results support the growing role of advanced AI systems as assistants in medical education and clinical practice. However, further research is needed to assess their use in multimodal and real-world clinical tasks.
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.