MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411724140 · doi:10.2196/69485

Performance of Large Language Models in the Non-English Context: Qualitative Study of Models Trained on Different Languages in Chinese Medical Examinations

2025· article· en· W4411724140 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhong Yao, Shuo Xu, Lingyi Chi, Dongfang Sheng

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Natural language processingLanguage modelArtificial intelligenceEnglish languageWord error rateBenchmark (surveying)LinguisticsPsychologyMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Research on large language models (LLMs) in the medical field has predominantly focused on models trained with English-language corpora, evaluating their performance within English-speaking contexts. The performances of models trained with non-English language corpora and their performance in non-English contexts remain underexplored. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the performances of LLMs trained on different languages corpora by using the Chinese National Medical Licensing Examination (CNMLE) as a benchmark and constructed analogous questions. Methods: Under different prompt settings, we sequentially posed questions to 7 LLMs: 2 primarily trained on English-language corpora and 5 primarily on Chinese-language corpora. The models' responses were compared against standard answers to calculate the accuracy rate of each model. Further subgroup analyses were conducted by categorizing the questions based on various criteria. We also collected error sets to explore patterns of mistakes across different models. Results: Under the zero-shot setting, 6 out of 7 models exceeded the passing level, with the highest accuracy rate achieved by the Chinese LLM Baichuan (86.67%), followed by ChatGPT (83.83%). In the constructed questions, all 7 models exceeded the passing threshold, with Baichuan maintaining the highest accuracy rate (87.00%). In few-shot learning, all models exceeded the passing threshold. Baichuan, ChatGLM, and ChatGPT retained the highest accuracy. While Llama showed marked improvement over previous tests, the relative performance rankings of other models stayed similar to previous results. In subgroup analyses, English models demonstrated comparable or superior performance to Chinese models on questions related to ethics and policy. All models except Llama generally had higher accuracy rates for simple questions than for complex ones. The error set of ChatGPT was similar to those of other Chinese models. Multimodel cross-verification outperformed single model, particularly improving accuracy rate on simple questions. The implementation of dual-model and tri-model verification achieved accuracy rates of 94.17% and 96.33% respectively. Conclusions: At the current level, LLMs trained primarily on English corpora and those trained mainly on Chinese corpora perform similarly well in CNMLE, with Chinese models still outperforming. The performance difference between ChatGPT and other Chinese LLMs are not solely due to communication barriers but are more likely influenced by disparities in the training data. By using a method of cross-verification with multiple LLMs, excellent performance can be achieved in medical examinations.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.403 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations18
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207