ArticleScientific reports2025
Benchmarking large language models on the United States medical licensing examination for clinical reasoning and medical licensing scenarios.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing diagnostic performance of multimodal AI and human experts in oral and maxillofacial radiography: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT, Grok, and MANUS.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- The Promises and Perils of Clinical Decision Support Artificial Intelligence.The clinical teacher · 2026Article
- Performance and Hallucination Analysis of Large Language Models on European Anesthesiology Examinations: Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Methods of Evaluating Large Language Model-Based Health Care Applications Used by Nonprofessionals: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Impact of guideline-based prompting on the large language model performance in dental trauma management clinical decision-making.Odontology · 2026Article
- Performance of Large Language Models for Oncology Nursing Decision Support: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparison of the performance of ChatGPT-5, Gemini 3, Copilot, Perplexity, and medical students in answering neurology questions: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Is Artificial Intelligence Ready for Emergency Department Triage? A Retrospective Evaluation of Multiple Large Language Models in 39,375 Patients at a University Emergency Department.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- The impact of DeepSeek's perceived interactivity on medical students' self-directed learning ability.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Cognitive reshaping and resurgence of humanness: restructuring the medical education continuum in the era of generative AI.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence can match domain experts in evidence extraction and critical appraisal of microbial oncogenesis research publications.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.