Claims

GPT‐4 through o1 models show significantly lower pooled accuracy in pathology (75%) than in other biomedical disciplines

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? GPT‐4_o1 versions achieved 75% pooled accuracy in pathology, significantly lower than other disciplines (meta‐regression p = 0.04). → Cheverko CM 2026

Evidence

Cheverko CM 2026

Cheverko CM, Mavrych V, Bolgova O, Mohamed FRR, Westrick J, Juarez L, Rush E, Solka KA, Doubleday AF, Byram JN, Becker R, Gomez V, Ganeng BKA, Hoffman LA, Roach VA, Brown KM, DeVaul N, Garnett CN, Herriott HL, Lufler RS, Mussell JC, Balta JY, Pascoe MA, Middleton JW, Duffy S, Stephens GC, Wilson AB. (2026). The performance of ChatGPT and other large language models on multiple‐choice questions in biomedical disciplines: A meta‐analysis. Anatomical Sciences Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.70262

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Discipline‐level pooled analysis of GPT‐4_o1 accuracy with meta‐regression comparing pathology against other disciplines; "this difference between pathology and the other disciplines was statistically significant (p = 0.04)". No effect size printed.

"GPT‐4_o1 versions achieved 75% accuracy in pathology. Using meta‐regression, this difference between pathology and the other disciplines was statistically significant (p = 0.04)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.