DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of the Performance of Advanced Large Language Models in Laboratory Medicine Using Residency Examinations

  • Kiwook Jung (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital) ;
  • Hyun Jin Kim (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Chungnam National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Sunghwan Shin (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital) ;
  • Wookeun Lee (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Pyeongtaek Saint Mary Hospital) ;
  • Jun Hyung Lee (Department of Laboratory Medicine, GC Labs) ;
  • Hee Sue Park (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital) ;
  • Qute Choi (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Chungnam National University School of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2025.04.17
  • 심사 : 2025.08.24
  • 발행 : 2026.05.01

초록

Background: Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have accelerated their integration into clinical domains, including laboratory medicine. The performance of LLMs in answering board-level laboratory medicine questions has not been comprehensively evaluated. Given the importance of diagnostic accuracy in this field, rigorous and objective evaluations of LLM capabilities are essential. Methods: We assessed 12 LLMs from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google using 320 Korean Residency Examination questions (2021-2024) spanning six laboratory medicine subspecialties. Standardized prompts were provided via their application programming interfaces under deterministic settings (temperature=0). Questions were administered thrice to assess response reproducibility. Outputs were compared with validated answers and analyzed for accuracy, reasoning quality, and error typology. Results: Google's Gemini 2.0 Pro achieved the highest accuracy (80.0%), followed by OpenAI's GPT-4.5 (77.2%) and Anthropic's Claude 3.7 Sonnet (74.1%). Accuracy decreased as the difficulty of questions increased (78.0% for easy vs. 45.1% for challenging). Subspecialty performance varied. Al models underperformed on questions on transfusion medicine (mean accuracy: 38.8%), primarily because of limitations in domain-specific and regional knowledge representations. Incorrect answers primarily resulted from reasoning errors. Reproducibility exceeded 95% for most models; however, some residual non-determinism appeared even with greedy decoding (temperature=0). Conclusions: LLMs demonstrated substantial potential for integration into laboratory medicine, particularly in clinical chemistry and immunology. Performance inconsistencies (particularly for high-difficulty questions) and knowledge gaps (notably for transfusion medicine) highlight the necessity for further development-potentially including domain-specific fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation integration-and robust expert oversight before clinical application.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Zubiaga A. Natural language processing in the era of large language models. Front Artif Intell 2023;6:1350306.
  2. Cascella M, Semeraro F, Montomoli J, Bellini V, Piazza O, Bignami E. The breakthrough of large language models release for medical applications: 1-year timeline and perspectives. J Med Syst 2024;48:22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-024-02045-3
  3. Singhal K, Azizi S, Tu T, Mahdavi SS, Wei J, Chung HW, et al. Large language models encode clinical knowledge. Nature 2023;620:172-80.
  4. You J, Seok HS, Kim S, Shin H. Advancing laboratory medicine practice with machine learning: swift yet exact. Ann Lab Med 2025;45:22-35. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2024.0354
  5. Jeong J, Kim S, Pan L, Hwang D, Kim D, Choi J, et al. Reducing the workload of medical diagnosis through artificial intelligence: a narrative review. Medicine (Baltimore) 2025;104:e41470. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000041470
  6. Yang HS, Li J, Yi X, Wang F. Performance evaluation of large language models with chain-of-thought reasoning ability in clinical laboratory case interpretation. Clin Chem Lab Med 2025;63:e199-201. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2025-0055
  7. Lippi G and Plebani M. Lights and shadows of artificial intelligence in laboratory medicine. Adv Lab Med 2025;6:1-3. https://doi.org/10.1515/almed-2025-0024
  8. Wu AHB, Jaffe AS, Peacock WF, Kavsak P, Greene D, Christenson RH. The role of artificial intelligence for providing scientific content for laboratory medicine. J Appl Lab Med 2024;9:386-93. https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfad095
  9. Girton MR, Greene DN, Messerlian G, Keren DF, Yu M. ChatGPT vs medical professional: analyzing responses to laboratory medicine questions on social media. Clin Chem 2024;70:1122-39. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvae093
  10. Munoz-Zuluaga C, Zhao Z, Wang F, Greenblatt MB, Yang HS. Assessing the accuracy and clinical utility of ChatGPT in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 2023;69:939-40. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvad058
  11. Bicknell BT, Butler D, Whalen S, Ricks J, Dixon CJ, Clark AB, et al. ChatGPT-4 Omni performance in USMLE disciplines and clinical skills: comparative analysis. JMIR Med Educ 2024;10:e63430. https://doi.org/10.2196/63430
  12. Liu M, Okuhara T, Dai Z, Huang W, Gu L, Okada H, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of advanced large language models in medical knowledge: a comparative study using Japanese national medical examination. Int J Med Inform 2025;193:105673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105673
  13. Gilson A, Safranek CW, Huang T, Socrates V, Chi L, Taylor RA, et al. How does ChatGPT perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)? The implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment. JMIR Med Educ 2023;9:e45312.
  14. Chang Y, Wang X, Wang J, Wu Y, Yang L, Zhu K, et al. A survey on evaluation of large language models. ArXiv 2023;2307.03109.
  15. Haze T, Kawano R, Takase H, Suzuki S, Hirawa N, Tamura K. Influence on the accuracy in ChatGPT: differences in the amount of information per medical field. Int J Med Inform 2023;180:105283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105283
  16. Huang CH, Hsiao HJ, Yeh PC, Wu KC, Kao CH. Performance of ChatGPT on stage 1 of the Taiwanese medical licensing exam. Digit Health 2024;10:20552076241233144.
  17. Lee JK, Choi S, Park S, Hwang SH, Cho D. Evaluation of Six Large Language Models for Clinical Decision Support: Application in Transfusion Decision-making for RhD Blood-type Patients. Ann Lab Med. 2025 Sep 1;45(5):520-529. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2024.0588
  18. Ahn S. Large Language Model Advances in Transfusion Medicine: From Answering Questions to Supporting Clinical Decisions. Ann Lab Med. 2025 Sep 1;45(5):469-471. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2025.0422
  19. Tam TYC, Sivarajkumar S, Kapoor S, Stolyar AV, Polanska K, McCarthy KR, et al. A framework for human evaluation of large language models in healthcare derived from literature review. NPJ Digit Med 2024;7:258. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-024-01258-7
  20. Peeperkorn M, Kouwenhoven T, Brown D, Jordanous A. Is temperature the creativity parameter of large language models? ArXiv 2024;2405.00492.
  21. Song Y, Wang G, Li S, Lin BY. The good, the bad, and the greedy: evaluation of LLMs should not ignore non-determinism. ArXiv 2024;2407.10457.
  22. Ouyang S, Zhang JM, Harman M, Wang M. An empirical study of the non-determinism of ChatGPT in code generation. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 2025;34:1-28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3697010
  23. Aronson SJ, Machini K, Shin J, Sriraman P, Hamill S, Henricks ER, et al. GPT-4 performance, nondeterminism, and drift in genetic literature review. NEJM AI 2024;1: AIcs2400245.
  24. Atil B, Aykent S, Chittams A, Fu L, Passonneau RJ, Radcliffe E, et al. Non-determinism of "deterministic" LLM settings. ArXiv 2025;2408.04667.
  25. Suh CH, Yi J, Shim WH, Heo H. Insufficient transparency in stochasticity reporting in large language model studies for medical applications in leading medical journals. Korean J Radiol 2024;25:1029-31. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2024.0788
  26. Mudrik A, Nadkarni GN, Efros O, Glicksberg BS, Klang E, Soffer S. Exploring the role of large language models in haematology: a focused review of applications, benefits and limitations. Br J Haematol 2024;205:1685-98. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.v205.5
  27. Yoon JH, Kwon IH, Park HW. The South Korean health-care system in crisis. Lancet 2024;403:2589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00766-9
  28. Moon J and Lee JY. Why I decide to leave South Korea healthcare system. Lancet Reg Health West Pac 2024;52:101232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanwpc.2024.101232