Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41359144›Full record

ArticleRheumatology international2025

Comparative evaluation of large language models on multiple-choice and image-based rheumatology questions.

Pannathorn Nakaphan, Ivan Damara, Bhoowit Lerttiendamrong, Varote Shotelersuk, Nattanicha Chaisrimaneepan

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Rheumatology international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Pannathorn NakaphanDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA. pannathorn0769@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-5137-5998
Ivan DamaraDepartment of Medicine, Richmond University Medical Center, New York, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-7988-7631
Bhoowit LerttiendamrongDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0143-6407
Varote ShotelersukDepartment of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3146-0686
Nattanicha ChaisrimaneepanDepartment of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3183-7853

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in medical education and clinical decision support, including applications in rheumatology. We evaluated seven publicly accessible LLM tools, ChatGPT (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0), Claude Sonnet 4, Gemini, Perplexity AI, DeepSeek, and OpenEvidence, using 50 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and 25 image-based diagnostic prompts. We assessed accuracy, self-reported confidence, and hallucination rates. In MCQs, DeepSeek achieved the highest accuracy (96%), followed by Claude (94%), GPT-3.5 (92%), GPT-4.0 (92%), Gemini (92%), OpenEvidence (92%), and Perplexity (90%). Image-based performance was lower and more variable, ranging from 16% (Claude) to 56% (Gemini). All models showed significantly reduced odds of correct responses to image questions compared to MCQs (p < 0.01). Claude performed significantly worse than GPT-3.5 on image-based questions (OR 0.24; 95% CI: 0.06–0.86, p = 0.04); no model significantly outperformed GPT-3.5 on MCQs. Confidence scores remained high across all models, ranging from 7 to 10 for MCQs and 8 to 10 for image-based questions. Hallucinations were rare for MCQs (n = 3; 1 Gemini, 2 Perplexity) but common in image responses, ranging from 40% (Gemini) to 84% (Claude). Publicly available LLMs demonstrate high accuracy on text-based rheumatology questions but show limited capability in image interpretation. High confidence in incorrect image responses and frequent hallucinations highlight the need for caution when integrating these tools into clinical education or decision-making.

Indexed as

Large Language ModelsRheumatologyGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansArtificial intelligenceEducation, medicalGenerative artificial intelligenceLarge language modelsNatural language processingRheumatology

Identifiers

PMID41359144

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.