The exact text we saved

This is the version exactly as it was saved, character for character. The SHA-256 hash below is a 64-character code worked out from that text. Run the same text through SHA-256 and you get the same code; change a single letter and the code comes out completely different. Each version also stores the previous version’s hash, which chains them together so no version can be swapped out quietly.

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-2464
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-11-11T01:47:18.535448Z
status: published
lens: p_space
sector: health
headline: Enhancing medical education with AI: A comparative study of various large language models in radiology
dek: Objective To compare how various Large Language Models (LLMs) perform when solving text- and image-based medical student-level radiology multiple-choice questions (MCQs). Methods We evaluated the accuracy of seven LLMs (i.e., ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5, ChatGPT-5 Plus, DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus, Microsoft Copilot, Claude 4, and Gemini 2.5 Flash) in solving 60 text-based and 60 image-based MCQs. We compared the seven LLMs' accuracy across question types, domains, and topics. Results The mean accuracy across the seven eva…
gain_title: (none)
problem_title: In a test of seven AI chatbots on 120 medical-student radiology questions, average accuracy was 65% on image-based questions versus 95% on text-based ones, so image answers need faculty checking.
trace_subject: (none)
gain_reading: (none)
gain_evidence: (none)
problem_reading: In a test of seven AI chatbots on 120 medical-student radiology questions, average accuracy was 65% on image-based questions versus 95% on text-based ones, so image answers need faculty checking.
problem_evidence: their average overall accuracy was 65% across all models for image-based questions and 95% for text-based questions
quick_read: A study at King Abdulaziz University's Faculty of Medicine in Rabigh, Saudi Arabia, tested seven AI chatbots on 120 newly written radiology multiple-choice questions for fourth-year medical students. Across all models the mean accuracy was 79.9% (671 of 840 answers correct). Average accuracy fell from 95% on 60 text questions to 65% on 60 image questions.

Claude 4 scored highest at 87% (104 of 120), while Gemini 2.5 Flash and Microsoft Copilot scored lowest at 75% each. Every model dropped 20 to 38 percentage points when moving from text to images. The authors conclude the chatbots should serve as add-ons to teaching, with faculty supervision, rather than replace it.

The differences between individual models were weak. Claude's lead over Gemini and Copilot did not hold up after statistical correction for multiple comparisons, so the consistent text-to-image drop is the firmer finding. Free models, DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus and ChatGPT-4o at 82% each, slightly beat the paid ChatGPT-5 Plus at 80%.
limitation: The 120 questions were written at a single institution by two faculty members without pilot testing, there was no human comparison group, and text questions were batched while image questions were not, so the gap may overstate image-reading weakness.
tag: Evidence-backed problem
key_points: Seven chatbots were tested: ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5, ChatGPT-5 Plus, DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus, Microsoft Copilot, Claude 4 and Gemini 2.5 Flash, each answering 60 text and 60 image questions. | Claude 4 scored 98% (59 of 60) on text questions and 75% (45 of 60) on image questions; Gemini scored 58% and Copilot 57% on image questions. | Knowledge-based questions averaged 83% accuracy versus 77% for skills-based questions. | By topic, accuracy ranged from 70% for musculoskeletal imaging to 100% for radiotherapy, but some topics had only three or four questions. | Free DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus and ChatGPT-4o (82% each) slightly outscored paid ChatGPT-5 Plus (80%). | In the statistical model, question type strongly predicted correctness (p < 0.001), while the model used did not (p = 0.361). | The authors recommend faculty supervision, teaching students to critically appraise AI output, and treating the tools as aids for revision and self-testing.
rundown: Two radiology assistant professors wrote the questions to match fourth-year undergraduate exams, using institutional teaching materials, and sorted them by type, domain and topic. Image questions used anonymized X-rays, CT, ultrasound, fluoroscopy and nuclear scans. All seven models were tested between August 23 and September 2, 2025, through public consumer interfaces with a single zero-shot prompt and one attempt per question.

Text questions were submitted in batches of 10, while image questions were submitted one at a time. Analysis used generalized estimating equations, Cochran's Q test and Bonferroni-corrected pairwise McNemar tests. Cochran's Q showed an overall difference among models (p = 0.035), but no pairwise gap survived correction (Claude versus Gemini, p = 0.096; versus Copilot, p = 0.180).

The authors say the study cannot separate failure to read images from other factors. Image questions skewed toward skills (66.7%) while text questions were more evenly split. The authors also say some image answers may have been deduced from the question text, so the 30-point gap may overstate the image-reading deficit.

They describe the 79.9% overall figure as driven by strong text performance and not a measure of image-reading skill. They note that confidently wrong answers are a documented risk, though this study did not measure how often they occurred, and call for careful governance of how students use these tools.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0360928 | 2026-11-06
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

SHA-256 hash

20da5035a06a5599f33d9088a7ab226619e5bd344cf6c202bfaf808d307de525

Previous version’s hash

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000