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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shiben Zhu, Wanqin Hu, Yang Zhi, Jiani Yan, Fang Zhang

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationFrench-language works237,207