Abstract
Purpose This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of medical knowledge in the most advanced LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-4, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Claude 3 Opus) as of 2024. It is the first to evaluate these LLMs using a non-English medical licensing exam. The insights from this study will guide educators, policymakers, and technical experts in the effective use of AI in medical education and clinical diagnosis.
Method Authors inputted 790 questions from Japanese National Medical Examination into the chat windows of the LLMs to obtain responses. Two authors independently assessed the correctness. Authors analyzed the overall accuracy rates of the LLMs and compared their performance on image and non-image questions, questions of varying difficulty levels, general and clinical questions, and questions from different medical specialties. Additionally, authors examined the correlation between the number of publications and LLMs’ performance in different medical specialties.
Results GPT-4o achieved highest accuracy rate of 89.2% and outperformed the other LLMs in overall performance and each specific category. All four LLMs performed better on non-image questions than image questions, with a 10% accuracy gap. They also performed better on easy questions compared to normal and difficult ones. GPT-4o achieved a 95.0% accuracy rate on easy questions, marking it as an effective knowledge source for medical education. Four LLMs performed worst on “Gastroenterology and Hepatology” specialty. There was a positive correlation between the number of publications and LLM performance in different specialties.
Conclusions GPT-4o achieved an overall accuracy rate close to 90%, with 95.0% on easy questions, significantly outperforming the other LLMs. This indicates GPT-4o’s potential as a knowledge source for easy questions. Image-based questions and question difficulty significantly impact LLM accuracy. “Gastroenterology and Hepatology” is the specialty with the lowest performance. The LLMs’ performance across medical specialties correlates positively with the number of related publications.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 24KJ0830.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
