Can LLMs Succeed in National Dental Examinations? A Comprehensive Analysis of Performance, Strengths, and Limitations
Xu, Y.; Peng, Y.; Dan, L.; Mei, L.; Han, X.; Duan, P.
Show abstract
Abstract Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored as adjunct tools in graduate medical education, but their reliability for answering discipline-specific certification examinations remains incompletely characterized. In dentistry in China, the national dental examination serves as a milestone for stomatology trainees. Prior studies predominantly rely on single metric, limiting reproducibility and granularity. Objective: To systematically evaluate the performance of five LLMs in answering the national standardized training examination for dental residents. Method: A total of 1,318 questions covering the six dentistry disciplines were selected. Five LLMs (DeepSeek-V3, DeepSeek-R1, Qwen3-32B, Claude 3.5, and GPT-4o) were evaluated via a single-response protocol on the Dify-based Chatflow framework. Performance combined human verification with automated scoring using the Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems (RAGAS) framework across seven dimensions. Tasks involving question classification, key-point categorization, and instructional requirement summarization were designed to enable a horizontal comparison of models' cognitive capabilities, assessed using inter-model consistency scores. Results: DeepSeek-R1 achieved the highest correct choice rate (80.90%, p < 0.001) and answer correctness score (0.853, p < 0.001), significantly outperforming the others. All models exhibited limitations, including information insufficiency, redundancy, and hallucination-related issues (lowest 44.20% in DeepSeek-R1). In classification and summarization tasks, Claude 3.5 showed higher consistency scores (186/181) than Qwen3-32B (152/151). Conclusion: Evaluated LLMs demonstrated good performance on dental examination questions and in executing tasks. DeepSeek-R1 consistently outperformed the others. While LLMs showed potential as supportive tools in dental education, further refinement and validation are needed before formal adoption in graduate medical educational and clinical training settings.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance of ChatGPT on Chinese National Medical Licensing Examinations: A Five-Year Examination Evaluation Study for Physicians, Pharmacists and Nurses 95%
- Large language models for generating medical examinations: systematic review 92%
- Medical students' perceptions towards artificial intelligence in education and practice: A multinational, multicenter cross-sectional study 91%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of Large Language Models in Medical Examinations:A Scoping Review Protocol 91%
- Comparison of local large language models for extraction of signs and symptoms data from electronic health records 90%
- Protocol For Human Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Clinical Consultations 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- One LLM is not Enough: Harnessing the Power of Ensemble Learning for Medical Question Answering 92%
- Health Communication Through News Media During the Early Stage of the COVID-19 Outbreak in China: A Digital Topic Modeling Approach 90%
- Developing an automatic system for classifying chatter about health services from Twitter: A case study for Medicaid 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on the Medical Final Examination 94%
- Large Language Models for Zero-Shot Procedure Extraction in Orthopedic Surgery: A Comparative Evaluation 89%
- A multipurpose machine learning approach to predict COVID-19 negative prognosis in Sao Paulo, Brazil 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.