Cited by 10Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence Applications

Assessment of Nursing Skill and Knowledge of ChatGPT, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and Llama: A Comparative Study

Open access
Dilan S. Hiwa, Sarhang Sedeeq Abdalla, Aso S. Muhialdeen, Hussein M. Hamasalih, Sanaa O. Karim·2024·Barw Medical Journal

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force in healthcare. This study assesses the performance of advanced AI systems—ChatGPT-3.5, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and Llama 2—in a comprehensive 100-question nursing competency examination. The objective is to gauge their potential contributions to nursing healthcare education and future potential implications. Methods The study tested four AI systems (ChatGPT 3.5, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Llama 2) with a 100-question nursing exam in February of 2024. A standardized protocol was employed to administer the examination, covering diverse nursing competencies. Questions derived from reputable clinical manuals ensured content reliability. The AI systems underwent evaluation based on accuracy rates. Results Microsoft Copilot demonstrated the highest accuracy at 84%, followed by ChatGPT 3.5 (77%), Gemini (75%), and Llama 2 (68%). None achieved complete accuracy on all questions. Each of the AI systems has answered at least one question that only they got correctly. Conclusion The variations in AI answers underscore the significance of selecting appropriate AI systems based on specific application requirements and domains, as no singular AI system consistently surpassed others in every aspect of nursing knowledge.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.58742/bmj.v2i2.87

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hiwa, D. S., Abdalla, S. S., Muhialdeen, A. S., Hamasalih, H. M., & Karim, S. O.
Affiliations
University of Sulaimani (IQ)
Venue
Barw Medical Journal
Published
2024-05-07
ISSN
2960-1959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4397000090
Cited by
10
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2
FWCI
0.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Barw Medical Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
large language models, ChatGPT, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Llama 2, nursing knowledge assessment, nursing education, artificial intelligence in healthcare

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review