Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41339739›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Benchmarking large language models on the United States medical licensing examination for clinical reasoning and medical licensing scenarios.

Md Kamrul Siam, Angel Varela, Md Jobair Hossain Faruk, Jerry Q Cheng, Huanying Gu, Abdullah Al Maruf, Zeyar Aung

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

7 authors.

Md Kamrul SiamComputer Science, New York Institute of Technology, New York, USA. ksiam01@nyit.edu.
Angel Varela *Colegio Maria Cano I.E.D., Bogotá, Colombia.
Md Jobair Hossain Faruk *Computer Science, New York Institute of Technology, New York, USA.
Jerry Q ChengComputer Science, New York Institute of Technology, New York, USA.
Huanying GuComputer Science, New York Institute of Technology, New York, USA.
Abdullah Al MarufBangladesh University of Business and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Zeyar AungElectrical Engineering and Computer Science, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming healthcare by assisting with intricate clinical reasoning and diagnosis. Recent research demonstrates that large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek, possess considerable potential in medical comprehension. This study meticulously evaluates the clinical reasoning capabilities of four advanced LLMs, including ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Grok, and Qwen, utilizing the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) as a standard benchmark. We assess 376 publicly accessible USMLE sample exam questions (Step 1, Step 2 CK, Step 3) from the most recent booklet released in July 2023. We analyze model performance across four question categories: text-only, text with image, text with mathematical reasoning, and integrated text-image-mathematical reasoning and measure model accuracy at three USMLE steps. Our findings show that DeepSeek and ChatGPT consistently outperform Grok and Qwen, with DeepSeek reaching 93% on Step 2 CK. Error analysis revealed that universal failures were rare (≤1.60%) and concentrated in multimodal and quantitative reasoning tasks, suggesting both ensemble potential and shared blind spots. Compared to the baseline ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo, newer models demonstrate substantial gains, though possible training-data exposure to USMLE content limits generalizability. Despite encouraging accuracy, models exhibited overconfidence and hallucinations, underscoring the need for human oversight. Limitations include reliance on sample questions, the small number of multimodal items, and lack of real-world datasets. Future work should expand benchmarks, integrate physician feedback, and improve reproducibility through shared prompts and configurations. Overall, these results highlight both the promise and the limitations of LLMs in medical testing: strong accuracy and complementarity, but persistent risks requiring innovation, benchmarking, and clinical oversight.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBenchmarkingClinical ReasoningLanguageLicensure, MedicalEducational MeasurementHumansLarge Language ModelsUnited StatesClinical reasoningDiagnostic decision supportLarge language models (LLMs)Medical licensing examinationUSMLE

Identifiers

PMID41339739
PMCPMC12796295

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.