ArticleCureus2026
Comparison of Large Language Model Performance on the United Kingdom Neurology Specialty Certificate Examination.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in medical education; however, a gap remains in the literature comparing the performance of different LLMs on neurology-specific higher-specialty training assessments. This study aimed to compare the performance of three leading LLMs, including ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA), Claude (Anthropic, San Francisco, CA, USA), and Gemini (Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA), on UK Neurology Specialty Certificate Examination (SCE) sample questions. Materials and methods This comparative cross-sectional performance evaluation used 83 official UK Neurology SCE single-best-answer (SBA) questions obtained from the Membership of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of the UK (MRCP (UK)). Explicit permission was obtained from MRCP (UK) for research and publication. Evaluated models included ChatGPT (version 5.5, thinking mode), Claude (Opus 4.6), and Gemini (Pro, thinking mode). Each LLM was presented with an identically formatted question set and identical prompts, instructing it to select the SBA and provide a brief explanation limited to 200 words. Each question was entered into a new chat session, so responses were generated independently of previous items. Official answers were used as the reference standard. Responses were coded as correct or incorrect, with binary answer accuracy as the primary outcome. Mixed-effects logistic regression compared the probability of a correct answer between LLMs, with question ID as a random intercept to account for question-level variation. Pairwise comparisons were adjusted using Holm correction to account for multiple testing. Confirmatory paired analyses were performed using Cochran's Q test and exact McNemar tests. Results ChatGPT answered 78 of 83 questions correctly, corresponding to an accuracy of 94.0% (95% Wilson CI 86.7-97.4%). Gemini also answered 78 of 83 questions correctly, with an accuracy of 94.0% (95% Wilson CI 86.7-97.4%), while Claude answered 66 of 83 questions correctly, corresponding to a lower accuracy of 79.5% (95% Wilson CI 69.6-86.8%). The mixed-effects model demonstrated a significant association between LLM identity and answer accuracy. Confirmatory paired analyses supported these findings. Cochran's Q test indicated a significant overall difference in accuracy among models (Q = 16.94, df = 2, p = 0.00021). Exact McNemar tests confirmed that ChatGPT and Gemini both significantly outperformed Claude, with no significant difference between them. Conclusions ChatGPT and Gemini demonstrated identical accuracy on official UK Neurology SCE sample questions, while Claude achieved notably lower accuracy on this dataset. Together, these findings suggest LLMs may perform well on selected specialist neurology training assessment questions and favor their use as a supplementary learning tool. However, these findings are based on a relatively small sample of questions and, in isolation, do not translate into real-world clinical competence or reasoning ability. Further studies should evaluate the quality of LLM clinical reasoning through predefined mark schemes and specialty-specific expert review.
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.