ArticleRheumatology international2025
Comparative evaluation of large language models on multiple-choice and image-based rheumatology questions.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the research landscape of virtual reality and artificial intelligence in medical education evaluation: A bibliometric analysis.Medicine · 2026Article
- A patient-derived benchmark for evaluating large language models in connective tissue diseases: blinded multi-stakeholder assessment and guideline comparison.Rheumatology international · 2026Observational
- Article
- Exploratory task-specific evaluation of large language models in lung cancer clinical scenarios: A comparative study.Digital healthArticle
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
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
Identifiers
41359144What 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.