ArticleScientific data2026
A Dataset for Evaluating Large Language Models on Chinese National Medical Licensing Examinations.
Article in Scientific data, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Dataset for Evaluating Large Language Models on Chinese National Medical Licensing Examinations.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Performance comparison of large language models for medication counseling in people living with HIV.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Beyond accuracy: evaluating the reliability of large language models for medical assessment.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- A comparative study of the performance of different large language models in the Chinese National Pharmacist Licensing Examination.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of large language model assistance on undergraduate art history question-answering performance: a randomized crossover pilot study.Frontiers in psychology · 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
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in medical education, question answering, and clinical reasoning, yet standardized datasets in non-English contexts remain limited. To address this gap, we present CNMLEQA, a benchmark dataset for evaluating LLMs on the Chinese National Medical Licensing Examination. The dataset integrates question-answer pairs from three sources, including PubMed, GitHub, and MedExamLLM. CNMLEQA comprises two subsets: CNMLEQA-10k (9,890 questions) and CNMLEQA-3k (2,949 questions), each consisting of multiple-choice questions with five options and one correct answer. Questions are annotated with key dimensions including: (1) question type (knowledge-based or case-based), (2) auxiliary metadata such as examination year, 3) clinical scenario information across five dimensions: disease or diagnosis, surgery, medication, laboratory examination, and symptom or sign. Annotation was conducted by clinical experts. To validate the dataset, we evaluated state-of-the-art LLMs including Gemini, DeepSeek, GPT, Qwen, and LLaMA, and conducted fine-tuning experiments specifically on Qwen models. Results show that Qwen2.5-32B achieved the accuracy of 90.88% on CNMLEQA-10k, while DeepSeek-R1 achieved the accuracy of 91.59% on CNMLEQA-3k. The fine-tuning experiments further demonstrated significant performance improvements. CNMLEQA provides a multidimensional, clinically grounded benchmark for advancing LLM evaluation in Chinese medical applications.
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.