MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405623292 · doi:10.2196/63731

Qwen-2.5 Outperforms Other Large Language Models in the Chinese National Nursing Licensing Examination: Retrospective Cross-Sectional Comparative Study

2024· article· en· W4405623292 on OpenAlex
Shiben Zhu, Wanqin Hu, Yang Zhi, Jiani Yan, Fang Zhang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintCross-sectional studyMedicineNursingComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as valuable tools in medical education and practice. The Chinese National Nursing Licensing Examination (CNNLE) presents unique challenges for LLMs due to its requirement for both deep domain–specific nursing knowledge and the ability to make complex clinical decisions, which differentiates it from more general medical examinations. However, their potential application in the CNNLE remains unexplored. Objective This study aims to evaluates the accuracy of 7 LLMs including GPT-3.5, GPT-4.0, GPT-4o, Copilot, ERNIE Bot-3.5, SPARK, and Qwen-2.5 on the CNNLE, focusing on their ability to handle domain-specific nursing knowledge and clinical decision-making. We also explore whether combining their outputs using machine learning techniques can improve their overall accuracy. Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed all 1200 multiple-choice questions from the CNNLE conducted between 2019 and 2023. Seven LLMs were evaluated on these multiple-choice questions, and 9 machine learning models, including Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, Multilayer Perceptron, k-nearest neighbors, Random Forest, LightGBM, AdaBoost, XGBoost, and CatBoost, were used to optimize overall performance through ensemble techniques. Results Qwen-2.5 achieved the highest overall accuracy of 88.9%, followed by GPT-4o (80.7%), ERNIE Bot-3.5 (78.1%), GPT-4.0 (70.3%), SPARK (65.0%), and GPT-3.5 (49.5%). Qwen-2.5 demonstrated superior accuracy in the Practical Skills section compared with the Professional Practice section across most years. It also performed well in brief clinical case summaries and questions involving shared clinical scenarios. When the outputs of the 7 LLMs were combined using 9 machine learning models, XGBoost yielded the best performance, increasing accuracy to 90.8%. XGBoost also achieved an area under the curve of 0.961, sensitivity of 0.905, specificity of 0.978, F1-score of 0.901, positive predictive value of 0.901, and negative predictive value of 0.977. Conclusions This study is the first to evaluate the performance of 7 LLMs on the CNNLE and that the integration of models via machine learning significantly boosted accuracy, reaching 90.8%. These findings demonstrate the transformative potential of LLMs in revolutionizing health care education and call for further research to refine their capabilities and expand their impact on examination preparation and professional training.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.383 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it