ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Performance and Hallucination Analysis of Large Language Models on European Anesthesiology Examinations: Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising performance on medical examinations across specialties. However, comparative evaluations of current-generation LLMs across multiple European anesthesiology examinations, alongside structured assessment of hallucinations vs question-related confusion, remain lacking. Objective: This study aimed to compare the performance of 4 state-of-the-art LLMs on anesthesiology and intensive medicine examination questions and assess their hallucination rates. Methods: This computational comparative study analyzed 437 multiple-choice questions (1748 queries) from 3 sources: nurse anesthetist school examinations (infirmier anesthésiste diplômé d'État [registered nurse anesthetist]; n=100, 22.9%), European Diploma in Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (EDAIC; n=219, 50.1%), and EDAIC On-Line Assessment (n=118, 27.0%). Each question was submitted to 4 LLMs (Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-5, and Grok 4) using standardized prompts via default web interface settings. Responses were evaluated through structured consensus review by 2 examiners for accuracy, hallucinations, and question-related confusion. Statistical analysis included Friedman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni correction, the Cochran Results: Average success rates ranged from 86% (SD 18%) to 94% (SD 10%) across LLMs and examination types, exceeding the EDAIC part I passing threshold, representing substantial improvement over previously reported GPT-3.5 performance. For the EDAIC, overall intermodel differences were significant (Friedman Conclusions: Current-generation LLMs demonstrated consistently high performance across multiple European anesthesiology examinations but continue to produce clinically relevant hallucinations, supporting their role as supervised educational tools rather than autonomous learning resources. These findings underscore the need for structured integration frameworks and systematic verification when deploying LLMs as learning tools in medical education.
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.