Abstract
Background Multiple-choice board examinations are a primary objective measure of competency in medicine. Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated rapid improvements in performance on medical board examinations in the past two years. We evaluated five leading LLMs on neurosurgical board exam questions.
Methods We evaluated five LLMs (OpenAI o1, OpenEvidence, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 2.0, and xAI Grok2) on 500 multiple-choice questions from the Self-Assessment in Neurological Surgery (SANS) American Board of Neurological Surgery (ABNS) Primary Board Examination Review. Performance was analyzed across 12 subspecialty categories and compared to established passing thresholds.
Results All models exceeded the threshold for passing, with OpenAI o1 achieving the highest accuracy (87.6%), followed by OpenEvidence (84.2%), Claude 3.5 Sonnet (83.2%), Gemini 2.0 (81.0%) and xAI Grok2 (79.0%). Performance was strongest in Other General (97.4%) and Peripheral Nerve (97.1%) categories, while Neuroradiology showed the lowest accuracy (57.4%) across all models.
Conclusions State of the art LLMs continue to improve, and all models demonstrated strong performance on neurosurgical board examination questions. Medical image analysis continues to be a limitation of current LLMs. The current level of LLM performance challenges the relevance of written board examinations in trainee evaluation and suggests that LLMs are ready for implementation in clinical medicine and medical education.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
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I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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 are available online at GitHub.com/nsa122/LLM-NS-boards
