When AI models take the exam: large language models vs medical students on multiple-choice course exams

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in healthcare and medical education, but their performance on institution-authored multiple-choice questions (MCQs), particularly with negative marking, remains unclear. To compare the examination performance of five contemporary LLMs with enrolled medical students on final multiple-choice (MCQ-style) course exams across four clinical courses. We conducted a comparative cross-sectional study at Miguel Hernández University (Spain) in 2025. Final exams in Infectious Diseases, Neurology, Respiratory Medicine, and Cardiovascular Medicine were administered under routine conditions in Spanish. Five LLMs (OpenAI o1, GPT-4o, DeepSeek R1, Microsoft Copilot, and Google Gemini 1.5 Flash) completed all MCQs in two independent runs. Scores were averaged and test-retest was estimated with Gwet's AC1. Student scores (<i>n</i> = 442) were summarized as mean ± SD or median (IQR). Pairwise differences between models were explored with McNemar's test; student-LLM contrasts were descriptive. Across courses, LLMs consistently exceeded the student median and, in several instances, the highest student score. Mean LLM courses scores ranged 7.46-9.88, versus student means 4.28-7.32. OpenAI o1 achieved the highest mean in three courses; Copilot led in Cardiovascular Medicine (text-only subset due to image limitations). All LLMs answered every MCQ and short term test-retest agreement was high (AC1 0.79-1.00). Aggregated across courses, LLMs averaged 8.75 compared with 5.76 for students. On department-set Spanish MCQ exams with negative marking, LLMs outperformed enrolled medical students, answered every item, and showed high short-term reproducibility. These findings support cautious, faculty-supervised use of LLMs as adjuncts to MCQ assessment (e.g. automated pretesting, feedback). Confirmation across institutions, languages, and image-rich formats, and evaluation of educational impact beyond accuracy are needed.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medical Education Online
Published
2025-11-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2025.2592430
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.65
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

When AI models take the exam: large language models vs medical students on multiple-choice course exams

Vicente Bertomeu‐González, Pablo Ros‐Arlanzón, Ángel Pérez Sempere, Luis Blasco et al.
1 citations
Medical Education Online
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
0.65
article

When AI models take the exam: large language models vs medical students on multiple-choice course exams

Vicente Bertomeu‐González, Pablo Ros‐Arlanzón, Ángel Pérez Sempere, Luis Blasco, Javier Abarca-Olivas, Mar Masiá, Laura Navarro-Cantó, Renato Gutarra-Ávila, Vicente Arrarte-Esteban, Juan Nieto-Navarro
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in healthcare and medical education, but their performance on institution-authored multiple-choice questions (MCQs), particularly with negative marking, remains unclear. To compare the examination performance of five contemporary LLMs with enrolled medical students on final multiple-choice (MCQ-style) course exams across four clinical courses. We conducted a comparative cross-sectional study at Miguel Hernández University (Spain) in 2025. Final exams in Infectious Diseases, Neurology, Respiratory Medicine, and Cardiovascular Medicine were administered under routine conditions in Spanish. Five LLMs (OpenAI o1, GPT-4o, DeepSeek R1, Microsoft Copilot, and Google Gemini 1.5 Flash) completed all MCQs in two independent runs. Scores were averaged and test-retest was estimated with Gwet's AC1. Student scores (<i>n</i> = 442) were summarized as mean ± SD or median (IQR). Pairwise differences between models were explored with McNemar's test; student-LLM contrasts were descriptive. Across courses, LLMs consistently exceeded the student median and, in several instances, the highest student score. Mean LLM courses scores ranged 7.46-9.88, versus student means 4.28-7.32. OpenAI o1 achieved the highest mean in three courses; Copilot led in Cardiovascular Medicine (text-only subset due to image limitations). All LLMs answered every MCQ and short term test-retest agreement was high (AC1 0.79-1.00). Aggregated across courses, LLMs averaged 8.75 compared with 5.76 for students. On department-set Spanish MCQ exams with negative marking, LLMs outperformed enrolled medical students, answered every item, and showed high short-term reproducibility. These findings support cautious, faculty-supervised use of LLMs as adjuncts to MCQ assessment (e.g. automated pretesting, feedback). Confirmation across institutions, languages, and image-rich formats, and evaluation of educational impact beyond accuracy are needed.

Medical Education OnlineVol. 30(1)
Universitat de Miguel Hernández d'Elx (ES), University of Kashmir (IN), Institut d'Investigació Biomédica de Bellvitge (ES), Hospital Clínica Benidorm (ES), Hospital General Universitario de Elche (ES), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de Alicante (ISABIAL) (ES), Ball (France) (FR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
0.65
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.