Comparative Analysis of Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot on Biochemistry MCQs: Performance, Pitfalls, and Potential for Biomedical Research

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive evaluation of four leading large language models (LLMs)—Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4, Gemini 1.5 Flash, and Microsoft Copilot—in answering biochemistry multiple-choice questions (MCQs). Tailored for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, we explore the foundational capabilities, methodological applications, and optimization strategies for these AI tools. Drawing on recent comparative studies, we validate their performance against medical student benchmarks and examine topic-specific strengths and weaknesses. The analysis reveals a clear performance hierarchy, with Claude leading in accuracy, and highlights critical limitations and future directions for integrating LLMs into biomedical research and education workflows.

The Rise of AI in Biochemistry: Understanding LLM Capabilities and Core Strengths

Large Language Models (LLMs) are revolutionizing medical and biochemical education by providing powerful tools for knowledge assessment and learning support. This guide provides a detailed, evidence-based comparison of four leading LLMs—Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot—focusing specifically on their performance in biochemistry multiple-choice questions (MCQs). Recent research demonstrates that these models exhibit significant performance variations, with Claude 3.5 Sonnet emerging as the top performer (92.5% accuracy) on standardized biochemistry examinations, surpassing both human medical students and other AI models [1] [2].

The integration of artificial intelligence into medical education represents a paradigm shift in how students access information and validate knowledge. As LLMs become increasingly sophisticated, understanding their respective strengths and limitations in specialized domains like biochemistry is essential for educators, researchers, and healthcare professionals. This analysis examines the comparative performance of major LLM platforms using rigorous experimental data, providing actionable insights for their effective implementation in educational contexts.

Performance Comparison Tables

Table 1: Comparative performance of LLMs on 200 biochemistry MCQs (USMLE-style)

AI Model	Developer	Accuracy (%)	Ranking
Claude 3.5 Sonnet	Anthropic	92.5%	1
GPT-4	OpenAI	85.0%	2
Gemini 1.5 Flash	78.5%	3
Copilot	Microsoft	64.0%	4

Source: Mavrych et al., 2025 [1] [2]

Performance by Biochemistry Topic Area

Table 2: Topic-wise performance analysis (% accuracy)

Biochemistry Topic	Claude 3.5	GPT-4	Gemini	Copilot
Eicosanoids	100%	100%	100%	100%
Bioenergetics & Electron Transport Chain	96.4%	96.4%	96.4%	96.4%
Ketone Bodies	93.8%	93.8%	93.8%	93.8%
Hexose Monophosphate Pathway	91.7%	91.7%	91.7%	91.7%
Amino Acid Metabolism	89.2%	82.5%	76.3%	65.8%
Enzyme Kinetics	87.6%	84.1%	79.5%	62.3%
Lipoprotein Metabolism	85.3%	80.2%	75.4%	58.9%

Source: Adapted from Mavrych et al., 2025 [1] [2]

Comparative Performance Across Medical Disciplines

Table 3: Cross-disciplinary performance analysis (% accuracy)

Model	Biochemistry	Cardiovascular Pharmacology	Emergency Medicine	Overall USMLE-style
Claude 3.5 Sonnet	92.5%	N/A	N/A	81.2%
GPT-4	85.0%	87-100% (MCQs)	84.1%	89.3%
Gemini	78.5%	20-87% (MCQs)	77.1%	82.7%
Copilot	64.0%	53-100% (MCQs)	92.2%	N/A

Sources: Mavrych et al., 2025; Ishaq et al., 2025; Aydin et al., 2025 [1] [3] [4]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standardized Biochemistry MCQ Evaluation

The primary comparative study evaluated four LLM chatbots using 200 United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)-style multiple-choice questions randomly selected from a medical biochemistry course examination database [1] [2]. The experimental protocol included:

• Question Selection: 200 scenario-based MCQs with 4 options and single correct answers, validated by two independent experts
• Topic Coverage: Questions distributed across 23 distinctive biochemistry categories including structural proteins, enzyme kinetics, metabolic pathways, and signaling mechanisms
• Exclusion Criteria: Questions with images and tables were excluded to ensure text-only processing
• Testing Protocol: Each chatbot underwent five successive attempts to answer the complete question set in August 2024
• Prompt Standardization: Identical prompt - "generate the list of correct answers for the following MCQs" - applied to all models
• Statistical Analysis: Chi-square tests used to compare results among different chatbots with statistical significance level of P<.05

This rigorous methodology ensured fair comparison across platforms while focusing specifically on biochemistry knowledge representation and reasoning capabilities.

Cardiovascular Pharmacology Assessment Protocol

A separate study evaluated ChatGPT-4, Copilot, and Google Gemini on cardiovascular pharmacology questions using a stratified difficulty approach [3]:

• Question Design: 45 MCQs and 30 short-answer questions across easy, intermediate, and advanced difficulty levels
• Evaluation Framework: MCQ responses scored as correct/incorrect; SAQs rated on 1-5 scale for relevance, completeness, and correctness
• Expert Validation: Three pharmacology professors with cardiovascular specialization independently rated responses
• Statistical Analysis: Two-way ANOVA used to compare accuracy scores across AI tools and difficulty levels with Bonferroni correction

Visualizing Performance Patterns

Biochemistry Topic Difficulty for LLMs - Performance accuracy decreases with increasing biochemical complexity, with all models performing perfectly on foundational topics but showing significant variation on advanced metabolic pathways.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential resources for LLM evaluation in biochemical education

Research Tool	Function	Specifications
USMLE-style MCQs	Standardized knowledge assessment	200 questions, 23 biochemistry topics, expert-validated
Biomedical NLP Benchmarks	Performance quantification	BLURB, BLUE benchmarks for specialized domain evaluation
Statistical Analysis Package	Data validation and significance testing	Chi-square tests, ANOVA with Bonferroni correction, P<0.05 threshold
Prompt Standardization Protocol	Experimental consistency	Identical prompts across all model evaluations
Domain Expert Validation	Ground truth establishment	Multiple pharmacology professors with cardiovascular specialization
Difficulty Stratification	Cognitive level assessment	Easy, intermediate, and advanced question classification

Key Findings and Performance Analysis

The comparative analysis reveals several critical patterns in LLM performance for biochemical education:

Claude 3.5 Sonnet's superior performance (92.5% accuracy) demonstrates exceptional capability in biochemical reasoning, surpassing even human medical students' average performance by 8.3% [1] [2]. This suggests particular optimization for complex metabolic pathway analysis and enzymatic process understanding.

GPT-4 maintains strong performance (85.0% in biochemistry) with remarkable consistency across diverse medical domains, achieving 89.3% accuracy on comprehensive USMLE-style examinations [5]. Its robust architecture appears well-suited for integrated clinical reasoning tasks.

Gemini shows intermediate performance (78.5% in biochemistry) with significant variability across domains, excelling in some areas while demonstrating notable limitations in complex pharmacological reasoning [3].

Copilot displays the most variable performance profile, ranking last in biochemistry (64.0%) while achieving top performance in emergency medicine (92.2%) [4] [1]. This suggests highly specialized rather than generalized medical knowledge representation.

All models exhibited perfect or near-perfect performance on structured biochemical topics like eicosanoids and bioenergetics, while showing increasing performance divergence on complex, integrated topics requiring multi-step reasoning [1] [2]. This pattern highlights the continuing challenge of contextual reasoning in AI systems for specialized educational domains.

The evidence clearly demonstrates that LLMs have achieved significant capability in biochemical education, with Claude 3.5 Sonnet currently leading in biochemistry-specific applications. However, performance variability across domains and question types indicates that model selection should be guided by specific educational objectives rather than presumed general superiority.

For biochemistry education and assessment applications requiring high accuracy on complex metabolic pathways, Claude 3.5 Sonnet represents the current optimal choice. For broader medical education spanning multiple disciplines, GPT-4 provides the most consistent performance. These tools should be viewed as complementary educational resources rather than replacements for traditional learning methodologies, with their implementations carefully matched to specific educational contexts and continuously validated against domain expertise.

Transformer-based models, introduced in the seminal 2017 paper "Attention is All You Need," have fundamentally reshaped the artificial intelligence landscape [6]. Originally developed for sequence-to-sequence tasks in natural language processing (NLP), their core self-attention mechanism allows for parallel processing of sequential data and superior capture of long-range dependencies compared to previous architectures like recurrent neural networks (RNNs) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs) [7] [6]. This architectural advantage has enabled transformers to transcend their original domain, achieving state-of-the-art performance across diverse scientific fields, from computational biology and medicine to time series forecasting and recommendation systems [7] [8].

This guide provides an objective comparison of transformer-based architectures and their performance against traditional alternatives in key scientific applications. It places particular emphasis on the context of biochemical research, framing the discussion around recent empirical findings on large language models (LLMs). The analysis synthesizes experimental data, detailed methodologies, and practical resources to inform researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals in their selection and implementation of these powerful AI tools.

Performance Comparison in Scientific Applications

Transformer-based models demonstrate versatile and superior performance across a range of scientific tasks. The quantitative results below facilitate a direct comparison with traditional machine learning and deep learning approaches.

Table 1: Performance of Transformer vs. Traditional Models in Classification and Forecasting

Application Domain	Task	Best Performing Model	Key Metric	Performance	Traditional Model Benchmark
Breast Cancer Pathology [9]	Binary Classification	ConvNeXT (CNN) & UNI (Transformer)	AUC	0.999	Multiple CNNs & Transformers
Breast Cancer Pathology [9]	Eight-Class Classification	UNI (Transformer)	Accuracy	95.5%	Multiple CNNs & Transformers
Career Satisfaction Prediction [10]	Classification	BERT (Transformer)	Accuracy	98%	80-85% (SVM, LR, RF, GRU)
Personalized Movie Recommendation [11]	Rating Prediction	MBT4R (Transformer)	RMSE	0.62	Higher (DT, KNN, RF, SVD, GRU)

Table 2: LLM Performance on Biochemistry MCQ Examination (n=200 questions) [12]

Large Language Model	Developer	Accuracy	Comparative Performance
Claude 3.5 Sonnet	Anthropic	92.5%	Surpassed medical student average by 16.7%
GPT-4	OpenAI	85.0%	Surpassed medical student average by 9.2%
Gemini 1.5 Flash	85.0%	Surpassed medical student average by 4.5%
Copilot	Microsoft	64.0%	Underperformed against student average

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Biochemistry MCQ Evaluation

A 2024 comparative study evaluated the performance of advanced LLMs against medical students on a biochemistry examination [12].

• Objective: To conduct a comprehensive analysis comparing the performance of LLM chatbots (Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, Copilot) against the academic results of medical students in a medical biochemistry course.
• Question Bank: The study utilized 200 United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)-style multiple-choice questions (MCQs) selected from a course exam database. The questions encompassed various complexity levels and were distributed across 23 distinctive topics. Questions containing tables and images were excluded.
• Model Testing: Each chatbot made five successive attempts to answer the full set of 200 questions in August 2024. The results were evaluated based on accuracy.
• Statistical Analysis: Data analysis was performed using Statistica 13.5.0.17. Given the binary nature of the data (correct/incorrect), the chi-square test was used to compare results among the different chatbots, with a statistical significance level of P < .05.

Computational Pathology Model Evaluation

A 2025 study trained and evaluated 14 deep learning models, including both CNN-based and Transformer-based architectures, on breast cancer pathology images from the BreakHis v1 dataset [9].

• Objective: To assess model performance in breast cancer diagnosis using key evaluation metrics, including accuracy, specificity, recall (sensitivity), F1-score, Cohen's Kappa coefficient, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC).
• Models: The study evaluated 14 models: AlexNet, VGG16, InceptionV3, ResNet50, DenseNet121, MobileNetV2, ResNeXt, RegNet, EfficientNet_B0, ConvNeXT, ViT, DINOV2, UNI, and GigaPath.
• Tasks: Models were evaluated on two tasks:
  • Binary Classification: Distinguishing between benign and malignant tissues.
  • Eight-Class Classification: Identifying specific breast cancer tissue subtypes.
• Foundation Model Fine-Tuning: The study also investigated the zero-shot performance of foundation models like UNI without fine-tuning, followed by an evaluation of their performance after simple fine-tuning on the target task.

Architectural Workflows and Signaling Pathways

The self-attention mechanism is the foundational component of the Transformer architecture. The following diagram illustrates the core workflow for processing sequential data, such as text or time-series information.

Self-Attention Data Flow

The application of transformers in scientific domains often involves hybrid architectures. The diagram below outlines a typical workflow for a transformer-based predictive model in a scientific context, such as classifying medical images or predicting career success from behavioral traits.

Scientific Model Pipeline

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

For researchers seeking to implement or evaluate transformer-based models, the following table details essential computational "reagents" and their functions.

Table 3: Essential Tools for Transformer-Based Research

Research Reagent	Category	Primary Function
Pre-trained Models (e.g., BERT, ViT, UNI)	Model Architecture	Provides a foundational model pre-trained on vast datasets, which can be fine-tuned for specific scientific tasks, reducing training time and data requirements [9] [6].
FlashAttention	Optimization	A low-level GPU optimization that speeds up attention computation and reduces memory footprint, enabling work with longer sequences [8].
Positional Encoding	Algorithmic Component	Injects information about the relative or absolute position of tokens in a sequence, crucial as the self-attention mechanism is otherwise permutation-invariant [13] [6].
Layer Normalization	Training Stabilization	Stabilizes the activations and gradients throughout the network layers, facilitating faster and more stable training of deep transformer models [13].
Fine-Tuning Dataset	Data	A smaller, domain-specific dataset (e.g., pathology images, biochemical questions) used to adapt a pre-trained model to a specialized scientific task [9] [12].

The evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) using United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)-style Biochemistry Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) provides a critical benchmark for assessing their capability in a specialized medical domain. Comparative studies reveal significant performance variations among leading models, offering researchers and professionals actionable insights into their respective strengths and weaknesses.

Table 1: Comparative Performance of LLMs on Biochemistry MCQs

Large Language Model	Developer	Accuracy on Biochemistry MCQs	Key Strengths
Claude 3.5 Sonnet	Anthropic	92.5% (185/200) [2] [14] [12]	Highest overall accuracy in biochemistry
GPT-4	OpenAI	85.0% (170/200) [2] [14] [12]	Strong all-around performer
Gemini 1.5 Flash	Google	78.5% (157/200) [2] [14] [12]	-
Copilot	Microsoft	64.0% (128/200) [2] [14] [12]	-

Beyond overall scores, performance varies considerably across specific biochemistry topics. Models demonstrate particular proficiency in structured, pathway-based concepts.

Table 2: Model Performance by Biochemistry Topic

Biochemistry Topic	Average Model Accuracy	Performance Notes
Eicosanoids	100% [2] [14]	All models achieved perfect scores
Bioenergetics & Electron Transport Chain	96.4% [2] [14]	High performance on energy metabolism
Ketone Bodies	93.8% [2] [14]	Strong grasp of metabolic states
Hexose Monophosphate Pathway	91.7% [2] [14]	Effective understanding of metabolic pathways

Experimental Protocols for LLM Evaluation

The validity of LLM benchmarking relies on standardized, reproducible experimental protocols. The methodology outlined below, drawn from recent comparative studies, ensures a consistent and fair evaluation framework.

Question Bank Curation

• Source and Selection: Studies utilized 200 USMLE-style MCQs randomly selected from medical biochemistry course examination databases [2] [14] [12]. These questions encompassed various complexity levels and were distributed across 23 distinct topics within biochemistry.
• Content Validation: All questions were validated by two independent subject matter experts to ensure clarity and appropriateness [2].
• Exclusion Criteria: To ensure compatibility with text-based LLM interfaces, questions containing images, tables, or charts were systematically excluded from the evaluation dataset [5] [2].

Model Configuration and Prompting

• Model Versions: Evaluations tested publicly available versions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4‐1106, Gemini 1.5 Flash, and Copilot [2] [14].
• Standardized Prompting: Each model received an identical, structured prompt: "generate the list of correct answers for the following MCQs" [2]. This approach minimizes variability introduced by prompt engineering.
• Parameter Settings: To ensure reproducibility, researchers conducted multiple independent runs (e.g., five successive attempts) for each model [2] [12]. The temperature parameter was typically set to 0.0 where possible to maximize deterministic outputs [5].

Data Analysis and Validation

• Accuracy Calculation: The primary metric was the percentage of correctly answered questions from the total set [2] [14].
• Statistical Testing: Researchers employed Pearson chi-square tests to determine if performance differences between models were statistically significant, with a P-value of less than 0.05 considered significant [2] [14].
• Expert Verification: AI-generated answers were compared against established answer keys and reviewed by domain experts to confirm accuracy [2].

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for benchmarking LLMs on biochemistry MCQs.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

The experimental benchmark for evaluating LLMs in biochemistry relies on a defined set of "research reagents" – essential components that ensure a valid, reproducible, and insightful comparison.

Table 3: Essential Reagents for LLM Biochemistry Evaluation

Research Reagent	Function in the Experiment
USMLE-style Biochemistry MCQ Bank	Serves as the standardized stimulus to probe model knowledge and reasoning; ensures clinical relevance [2] [14].
Standardized Prompt Protocol	Acts as the consistent "reaction condition" to eliminate variability in model responses caused by input phrasing [2].
Predefined Scoring Rubric	Functions as the objective measurement tool, defining a correct/incorrect binary outcome for unambiguous performance tracking [2] [15].
Statistical Analysis Package	The "analytical instrument" (e.g., Chi-square test) to determine if observed performance differences are statistically significant and not due to chance [5] [2] [14].

Interpreting the Benchmark Results

The collective data from these controlled evaluations leads to several key conclusions relevant for researchers and drug development professionals:

• Model Specialization: Claude 3.5 Sonnet's top performance suggests potential specialization in biochemistry, making it a prime candidate for applications in this domain [2] [14] [12].
• Performance Gap: The significant accuracy range (92.5% to 64.0%) underscores that LLMs are not interchangeable for specialized tasks [2] [14]. Model selection is critical.
• Topic-Specific Proficiency: Consistently high scores in pathway-based topics (e.g., bioenergetics) indicate that structured, logical biochemical concepts may be a current strength of LLMs [2] [14].

Diagram 2: Logical relationship defining the benchmark process from input to performance profile.

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have ushered in a new era for medical education and assessment. Large language models (LLMs) are now demonstrating remarkable capabilities on standardized tests, often surpassing human performance in specialized medical subjects such as biochemistry. This guide provides an objective, data-driven comparison of four leading AI platforms—Claude (Anthropic), GPT-4 (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), and Copilot (Microsoft)—focusing on their performance on biochemistry multiple-choice questions (MCQs). The analysis is based on the latest published research, offering researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals a clear overview of the current landscape and the specific strengths of each model [1] [12].

Key Performance Metrics in Biochemistry

The core data for this comparison originates from a comprehensive study published in 2025, which evaluated these AI models using 200 USMLE-style biochemistry MCQs. The table below summarizes their overall performance, benchmarked against human medical students [1] [2] [12].

AI Model (Developer)	Overall Accuracy (%)	Number of Correct Answers (Out of 200)	Performance Relative to Students
Claude (Anthropic)	92.5%	185	Superior
GPT-4 (OpenAI)	85.0%	170	Superior
Gemini (Google)	78.5%	157	Superior
Copilot (Microsoft)	64.0%	128	Superior
Average of AI Chatbots	81.1%	162.2	Superior by 8.3%
Medical Students	72.8%	~146	Benchmark

On average, the selected AI chatbots correctly answered 81.1% of the questions, a performance that was 8.3% higher than the average score achieved by medical students (72.8%), a difference that was statistically significant (P=.02) [1] [12].

Performance also varied significantly by topic, highlighting each model's unique strengths in specific areas of biochemistry. The following table details the mean accuracy of the AI models across the highest and lowest-performing topics [1].

Biochemistry Topic	Mean AI Accuracy (%)	Standard Deviation (SD)
Eicosanoids	100%	0%
Bioenergetics & Electron Transport Chain	96.4%	7.2%
Ketone Bodies	93.8%	12.5%
Hexose Monophosphate Pathway	91.7%	16.7%
Amino Acid Metabolism	76.0%	17.4%
Nitrogen Metabolism	72.9%	22.2%
Fast and Fed State	71.9%	23.9%
Lysosomal Storage Diseases	68.8%	17.7%

Comparative Performance Across Medical Disciplines

The trend of AI outperforming human benchmarks extends beyond biochemistry. Research in other medical subjects reveals a consistent pattern, though the ranking of models can vary by discipline.

• In Anatomy: A 2025 study evaluating 325 USMLE-style MCQs found that current LLMs achieved an average accuracy of 76.8%, significantly higher than the 44.4% accuracy of GPT-3.5 from the previous year. In this domain, GPT-4o led with 92.9% accuracy, followed by Claude (76.7%), Copilot (73.9%), and Gemini (63.7%) [16].
• In Cardiovascular Pharmacology: A 2025 study testing MCQs and short-answer questions (SAQs) across difficulty levels reported that ChatGPT-4 and Copilot maintained high accuracy (87-100%) on easy and intermediate MCQs. However, on advanced MCQs, their performance declined, with Copilot at 53% and Gemini at 20% accuracy. For SAQs, ChatGPT-4 demonstrated the highest overall accuracy, while Gemini's performance was markedly lower [15] [3].

Detailed Experimental Protocol

To ensure transparency and reproducibility, the methodology of the key biochemistry study is outlined below [1] [2].

1. Study Design and Question Selection

• Source: 200 USMLE-style multiple-choice questions were randomly selected from a medical biochemistry course's examination database.
• Validation: Questions were validated by two independent subject-matter experts.
• Scope: The questions encompassed various complexity levels and were distributed across 23 distinctive biochemistry topics.
• Exclusion Criteria: Questions containing tables and images were excluded from the analysis.

2. AI Models and Testing Parameters

• Models Tested: Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Anthropic), GPT-4‐1106 (OpenAI), Gemini 1.5 Flash (Google), and Copilot (Microsoft).
• Testing Window: Data collection occurred over two weeks in August 2024.
• Prompting: Each chatbot was given the standardized prompt: “generate the list of correct answers for the following MCQs” followed by the set of questions.
• Repetition: The process was repeated five successive times for each model to ensure consistency and account for potential variability.

3. Data Analysis

• Performance Metric: Accuracy was calculated based on the proportion of correctly answered questions.
• Statistical Analysis: Basic statistics and chi-square tests were performed using Statistica 13.5.0.17 (TIBCO Software Inc.), with a statistical significance level of P<.05.

Visualizing High-Performance Biochemical Pathways

The AI models demonstrated exceptional accuracy on topics involving key metabolic pathways. Below are simplified diagrams of two pathways where AI performance exceeded 91%.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

For researchers aiming to replicate or build upon such AI performance evaluations, the following "research reagents" or essential components are critical.

Item	Function in Experimental Protocol
USMLE-style MCQs	Standardized assessment tool to evaluate and compare AI knowledge and reasoning capabilities against a recognized medical education benchmark [1] [16].
Validated Question Bank	A pre-existing database of questions, reviewed by subject-matter experts, to ensure content validity, appropriate difficulty, and freedom from errors [1] [17].
Standardized Prompt	A consistent text instruction (e.g., "generate the list of correct answers...") used to query each AI model, minimizing variability introduced by prompt engineering [1] [15].
Statistical Analysis Software	Software such as Statistica or GraphPad Prism used to perform rigorous statistical tests (e.g., chi-square) to determine the significance of performance differences [1] [15].
Expert Review Panel	A team of human experts (e.g., licensed pharmacologists, medical professors) required to validate questions, create model answers, and evaluate open-ended AI responses [15] [17].

The collective evidence from recent studies indicates that large language models have reached a level of proficiency where they can not only compete with but also surpass the average performance of medical students on standardized biochemistry tests and other specialized medical subjects. Among the models compared, Claude 3.5 Sonnet demonstrated superior performance in biochemistry, while GPT-4 consistently ranks as a top contender across diverse medical disciplines. However, performance is not uniform; it varies significantly by the specific subject matter and the complexity of the questions, with all models showing declines when faced with advanced, complex scenarios [1] [15] [16]. This underscores that AI currently serves best as a powerful complementary tool in educational and research settings, rather than a replacement for deep expert knowledge and critical validation.

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into biochemistry represents a paradigm shift, revolutionizing how researchers approach complex biological systems. From predicting molecular interactions to analyzing metabolic pathways, AI tools are dramatically enhancing research capabilities across key biochemical domains [18]. This transformation is particularly evident in the educational and research sectors, where large language models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized to navigate complex biochemical concepts and multiple-choice questions (MCQs). As biochemistry encompasses vast and intricate knowledge areas—from the precise architecture of molecular structures to the interconnected networks of metabolic pathways—the ability of different AI models to accurately interpret and reason about this information varies significantly. This guide provides an objective, data-driven comparison of four leading AI models—Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot—specifically evaluating their performance in handling biochemistry MCQs, a common assessment format in research and educational settings.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Study Design and Question Selection

To ensure a comprehensive evaluation of AI model capabilities, researchers have employed rigorous experimental designs. In a pivotal 2024 study, investigators utilized 200 United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)-style multiple-choice questions specifically focused on medical biochemistry [2]. These questions encompassed various complexity levels and were distributed across 23 distinctive biochemical topics, including structural proteins and associated diseases, bioenergetics and electron transport chain, enzyme kinetics, metabolic pathways (e.g., glycolysis, glycogen metabolism, hexose monophosphate pathway), cholesterol metabolism, eicosanoids, fatty acid metabolism, and nitrogen metabolism [2]. The question selection process involved random selection from established medical biochemistry course examination databases, with validation by independent subject matter experts to ensure content accuracy and appropriate difficulty distribution [2].

To maintain methodological consistency, questions containing tables and images were excluded from the evaluation, focusing exclusively on text-based questions to eliminate potential confounding variables related to multimodal interpretation capabilities [2]. This approach allowed for a purified assessment of each model's biochemical knowledge retention and application skills without the complication of visual processing elements.

AI Model Testing Protocol

The testing protocol involved administering the identical set of 200 biochemistry MCQs to four advanced AI chatbots: Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Anthropic), GPT-4-1106 (OpenAI), Gemini 1.5 Flash (Google), and Copilot (Microsoft) [2]. Each model was provided with the prompt: "generate the list of correct answers for the following MCQs" [2]. To ensure statistical reliability and account for potential response variability, researchers conducted five successive attempts with each AI model using the same question set in August 2024 [2].

The experimental setup maintained consistency across all testing instances, using the same phrasing and question order for each model. Performance was evaluated based solely on answer accuracy, with responses compared against established correct answers. This systematic approach allowed for direct comparison of model capabilities while minimizing the influence of external variables on performance outcomes [2].

Comparative Performance Analysis

The aggregate results from comprehensive testing reveal significant performance variations among the four AI models when handling biochemistry MCQs. Claude demonstrated superior performance, correctly answering 92.5% (185/200) of questions [2]. GPT-4 followed with 85% (170/200) accuracy, while Gemini achieved 78.5% (157/200) correct responses [2]. Copilot trailed the group with 64% (128/200) accuracy [2]. Collectively, the selected chatbots correctly answered an average of 81.1% of biochemistry questions, surpassing human medical student performance by 8.3% (P=.02) [2].

Table 1: Overall Performance on Biochemistry MCQs

AI Model	Correct Answers	Accuracy (%)	Performance Ranking
Claude	185/200	92.5%	1
GPT-4	170/200	85.0%	2
Gemini	157/200	78.5%	3
Copilot	128/200	64.0%	4
Average	162.5/200	81.1%

These findings align with similar research conducted in cardiovascular pharmacology, where ChatGPT-4 demonstrated the highest accuracy in addressing both MCQ and short-answer questions across all difficulty levels, with Copilot ranking second and Google Gemini showing significant limitations in handling complex medical content [3].

Performance by Biochemical Topic

The AI models demonstrated variable performance across different biochemical domains, excelling in some areas while showing limitations in others. The chatbots collectively achieved their highest accuracy in four specific topics: eicosanoids (mean 100%, SD 0%), bioenergetics and electron transport chain (mean 96.4%, SD 7.2%), hexose monophosphate pathway (mean 91.7%, SD 16.7%), and ketone bodies (mean 93.8%, SD 12.5%) [2]. This pattern suggests that AI models may particularly excel in biochemical domains characterized by systematic pathways and well-defined metabolic processes where training data is likely more comprehensive and consistent.

Table 2: AI Performance Across Key Biochemical Topics

Biochemical Topic	Average Accuracy (%)	Standard Deviation	Top Performing Model
Eicosanoids	100.0%	0.0%	All models
Bioenergetics & ETC	96.4%	7.2%	Claude
Ketone Bodies	93.8%	12.5%	Claude
Hexose Monophosphate Pathway	91.7%	16.7%	Claude
Cholesterol Metabolism	Data not specified	Data not specified	Data not specified
Amino Acid Metabolism	Data not specified	Data not specified	Data not specified
Nitrogen Metabolism	Data not specified	Data not specified	Data not specified

The statistically significant association between the answers of all four chatbots (P<.001 to P<.04) as indicated by Pearson chi-square testing suggests that certain biochemical question types present consistent challenges across AI platforms, while others are more universally mastered [2]. This performance pattern highlights how the structural complexity of biochemical knowledge influences AI model accuracy, with systematically organized information yielding better outcomes than topics requiring more nuanced contextual understanding.

Advanced AI Applications in Biochemical Research

Molecular Structure Prediction and Analysis

Beyond educational applications, AI-driven tools are revolutionizing fundamental biochemical research, particularly in protein structure prediction. Tools like AlphaFold have achieved exceptional accuracy in predicting protein folding from amino acid sequences, addressing a longstanding challenge in structural biology [18]. These systems use deep learning techniques to model protein folding based on amino acid sequences, enabling researchers to predict structures of proteins that are difficult to study experimentally [19]. The implications for drug discovery are substantial, as accurate protein structure prediction facilitates more precise drug targeting and development.

Advanced systems like the Integrated Biosynthetic Inference Suite (IBIS) employ Transformer-based models to generate high-quality embeddings for individual enzymes, biosynthetic domains, and metabolic pathways [20]. These embedded representations enable rapid, large-scale comparisons of metabolic proteins and pathways, surpassing the capabilities of conventional methodologies [20]. Such AI-driven contextualization of enzyme function within numeric space accelerates the processing and comparison of genomic data, revealing encoded metabolic functions that traditional bioinformatic tools might overlook [20].

Metabolic Pathway Analysis and Integration

AI technologies are dramatically advancing the analysis of complex metabolic systems. Machine learning techniques are enhancing our understanding of metabolic pathways by predicting missing enzymes and metabolites, enabling the design of synthetic biological systems for applications in biofuel production and biopharmaceutical development [18]. The IBIS framework exemplifies this approach by integrating both primary and specialized metabolism within a knowledge graph, eliminating artificial dichotomies and highlighting interrelationships between metabolic pathways [20].

Knowledge graphs provide an effective framework for modeling relationships uncovered by comparative genomic studies, enabling efficient information retrieval, pattern discovery, and advanced reasoning [20]. This approach offers particular value for metabolic research, where heterogeneous and dynamic data must be harmonized to uncover insights into metabolic pathways and their genomic encodings [20]. The integration of multi-omics data (genomics, proteomics, metabolomics) using AI algorithms helps uncover complex biological interactions and biochemical underpinnings of diseases [18].

Visualization of AI Performance in Biochemical Domains

AI Performance in Biochemical Domains

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for AI Biochemistry Applications

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
AlphaFold	Protein structure prediction	Molecular modeling & drug discovery [18]
IBIS (Integrated Biosynthetic Inference Suite)	Metabolic pathway analysis & enzyme annotation	Bacterial metabolism studies [20]
DeepVariant	Genomic variant identification	DNA sequencing & personalized medicine [19]
DeepECTransformer	Enzyme Commission number prediction	Enzyme classification & function prediction [20]
MultiverSeg	Medical image segmentation	Biomedical image analysis in clinical research [21]
H2O AutoML	Automated machine learning workflow	Clinical biomarker analysis [22]
SHAP Analysis	Model interpretability & feature importance	Explaining AI predictions in clinical diagnostics [22]
Knowledge Graphs	Data integration & relationship mapping	Metabolic pathway interrelation studies [20]

The comparative analysis of AI models for biochemistry applications reveals a rapidly evolving landscape with significant implications for research and education. Claude's superior performance (92.5% accuracy) in biochemistry MCQs positions it as a potentially valuable tool for educational support and preliminary research inquiries [2]. However, the variable performance across biochemical topics suggests that researchers should consider domain-specific strengths when selecting AI tools for particular applications.

The expanding capabilities of AI systems in structural prediction (AlphaFold), metabolic analysis (IBIS), and diagnostic applications (ML-based biomarker prediction) demonstrate how artificial intelligence is transforming biochemical research beyond educational contexts [18] [20] [22]. As these technologies continue to evolve, their integration into biochemical research workflows promises to accelerate discovery in drug development, personalized medicine, and synthetic biology.

For optimal results, researchers and educators should adopt a complementary approach to AI integration, leveraging the distinct strengths of different models while maintaining traditional verification methods. This balanced strategy will help maximize the benefits of AI assistance while mitigating limitations, ultimately advancing both biochemical education and research innovation.

Implementing AI Tools: A Practical Framework for Biochemistry MCQ Analysis

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into specialized domains such as biochemistry requires rigorous evaluation to ensure their reliability and accuracy. For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, the selection of an appropriate LLM can significantly impact the efficiency and validity of research outcomes. This guide provides a structured framework for evaluating the performance of leading LLMs—specifically Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot—on biochemistry multiple-choice questions (MCQs). It details the experimental design, from question selection and topic categorization to data analysis, drawing on recent comparative studies to establish robust evaluation protocols. The objective is to equip professionals with a methodological toolkit for conducting systematic LLM assessments, ensuring that model selection is driven by empirical evidence tailored to the nuanced demands of biochemical research [15] [23].

Recent empirical studies have begun to quantify the performance of various LLMs on specialized biomedical tasks. The data below summarize key findings from controlled experiments, providing a baseline for model capabilities in interpreting complex biochemical data.

Table 1: Performance of LLMs on Biochemistry and Pharmacology Questions [15] [23]

Model / LLM	Overall MCQ Accuracy (Cardiovascular Pharmacology)	SAQ Score (1-5 Scale, Cardiovascular Pharmacology)	Accuracy in Interpreting Biochemical Laboratory Data
ChatGPT (GPT-4)	96% (Advanced: 87%)	4.7 ± 0.3	Lower accuracy (Median Score: 2/5)
Microsoft Copilot	84% (Advanced: 53%)	4.5 ± 0.4	Highest accuracy (Median Score: 5/5)
Google Gemini	84% (Advanced: 20%)	3.3 ± 1.0	Moderate accuracy (Median Score: 3/5)
Claude 3 Opus	Information Not Available	Information Not Available	Information Not Available

Note: SAQ = Short-Answer Questions. The biochemical data interpretation task involved analyzing simulated patient data including serum urea, creatinine, glucose, and lipid profiles [15] [23]. Claude's performance in specific, direct comparisons within these particular studies was not available.

Core Components of an LLM Evaluation Study Design

A robust evaluation of LLMs for biochemistry requires a carefully constructed study design. The core components ensure the assessment is scientifically valid, replicable, and provides meaningful insights for professionals in the field.

Question Selection and Topic Categorization

The foundation of a reliable evaluation is a well-defined set of questions. The selection and categorization process should be methodical and reflect the domain's complexity [15].

1. Define the Biochemical Domain and Subtopics

• Action: Start by identifying a core area of biochemistry, such as Cardiovascular Pharmacology or Metabolic Pathways.
• Rationale: A focused domain allows for a deep and meaningful assessment of the LLMs' knowledge in a specific area, making the results more actionable for specialists [15].

2. Develop Questions Across Cognitive Levels

• Action: Create original questions or curate them from trusted academic sources. Categorize each question by difficulty level [15]:
  • Easy: Tests simple recall of facts (e.g., definitions, basic drug applications).
  • Intermediate: Requires deeper understanding, explanations, and comparisons.
  • Advanced: Demands critical thinking, knowledge integration, and analysis of complex scenarios.
• Rationale: This stratification is crucial, as LLM performance can vary significantly with question difficulty. For instance, one study found a sharp decline in the performance of Copilot and Gemini on advanced questions, while ChatGPT (GPT-4) maintained high accuracy [15].

3. Validate Question Quality

• Action: All test questions and model answers should be prepared and validated by a panel of experienced pharmacology or biochemistry professors. The panel ensures clarity and that the questions accurately target the intended difficulty level [15].

Experimental Protocol for LLM Evaluation

A standardized protocol is essential to ensure a fair and consistent comparison between different LLMs. The following workflow outlines the key steps, from preparation to analysis.

Diagram Title: LLM Evaluation Workflow

The experimental protocol can be broken down into four distinct phases [15]:

Phase 1: Study Preparation This initial phase involves defining the scope of the evaluation. Researchers must select the specific LLMs to be tested (e.g., Claude 3 Opus, GPT-4, Gemini, Copilot) and prepare the question set. The questions must be rigorously developed and validated by subject matter experts to ensure they are clear and appropriately categorized by difficulty [15].

Phase 2: Data Collection To ensure consistency and minimize bias, the same set of questions is input into each LLM. A critical aspect of this phase is using only a single prompt per test without any follow-up questions or additional context. This approach standardizes the interaction and simulates a one-shot query, which is common in real-world use cases. All responses are meticulously recorded for subsequent analysis [15].

Phase 3: Expert Evaluation The generated answers are then anonymized to prevent reviewer bias. A panel of at least three licensed and independent subject matter experts (e.g., pharmacology professors) reviews each response. They rate the answers based on a predefined scoring system. For short-answer questions, a 1-5 Likert scale is often used [15]:

• Score 5 (Excellent): Comprehensive understanding, no errors.
• Score 4 (Good): Solid understanding, minor errors.
• Score 3 (Satisfactory): Addresses key points but lacks depth, some errors.
• Score 2 (Below Average): Incomplete, notable errors.
• Score 1 (Unsatisfactory): Little to no understanding, numerous errors.

Phase 4: Data Analysis In the final phase, the collected scores are analyzed quantitatively. For MCQs, the percentage of correct answers is calculated for each model, often broken down by difficulty level. For short-answer questions, the mean and standard deviation of the expert scores are computed. Statistical tests, such as the Friedman test with Dunn's post-hoc analysis for non-parametric data, are then employed to determine if the performance differences between the LLMs are statistically significant [15] [23].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for LLM Evaluation

Conducting a rigorous LLM evaluation requires both methodological rigor and specific "research reagents"—the essential tools and frameworks used to measure performance.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for LLM Evaluation [15] [24] [25]

Research Reagent	Type	Function in Evaluation
Custom Biochemistry MCQ Bank	Dataset	Provides the ground truth and specific tasks for testing domain-specific knowledge and reasoning [15].
MMLU (Massive Multitask Language Understanding) Benchmark	Benchmark	A general benchmark that tests broad knowledge and problem-solving abilities across 57 subjects, useful for establishing a baseline [24] [25].
Human Expert Panel	Evaluation Method	Provides nuanced, qualitative assessment of LLM outputs for criteria like factuality, coherence, and completeness, serving as the gold standard [15] [26].
LLM-as-a-Judge (e.g., G-Eval)	Evaluation Method	Uses a powerful LLM to automatically evaluate other LLM outputs based on natural language rubrics, offering a scalable alternative to human evaluation [24] [27].
Statistical Analysis Software (e.g., SPSS, GraphPad Prism)	Tool	Used to perform statistical tests (e.g., ANOVA, Friedman test) to determine the significance of performance differences between models [15] [23].
Semantic Similarity Metrics (e.g., BERTScore)	Metric	Evaluates the semantic similarity between an LLM's generated text and a reference answer, going beyond simple word overlap [27] [26].

A methodical study design for LLM evaluation, centered on deliberate question selection and rigorous topic categorization, is paramount for assessing the true capabilities of models like Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot in biochemistry. The experimental data reveals that performance is not uniform and can vary significantly with task difficulty and type. By adhering to a structured protocol—encompassing careful question development, controlled data collection, blinded expert evaluation, and robust statistical analysis—researchers and drug development professionals can generate reliable, actionable evidence. This evidence-based approach ensures that the selection of an LLM is not based on brand recognition alone, but on a validated understanding of its performance in the complex and critical domain of biochemistry.

Prompt Engineering Strategies for Optimal Biochemistry Question Response

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into biochemical research represents a paradigm shift in how scientists access and process complex information. For researchers and drug development professionals, these tools offer the potential to rapidly retrieve specialized knowledge, from metabolic pathway details to pharmacodynamic principles. However, their performance varies significantly across different biochemical domains, necessitating strategic prompt engineering to optimize outputs. Recent comparative studies reveal that advanced LLMs including Claude (Anthropic), GPT-4 (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), and Copilot (Microsoft) demonstrate distinctive capabilities and limitations when handling biochemistry multiple-choice questions (MCQs), with performance directly influenced by prompt construction and domain specificity [2] [15].

Evidence from rigorous evaluations indicates that on average, these selected chatbots correctly answer 81.1% (SD 12.8%) of biochemistry questions, surpassing medical students' performance by 8.3% (P=.02) [2]. This performance advantage, however, masks significant variation between models and across biochemical subdisciplines, highlighting the critical importance of model selection and prompt engineering for research applications. This guide provides evidence-based strategies for maximizing LLM performance in biochemistry contexts through optimized prompt engineering, supported by comparative experimental data and methodological protocols.

Comparative Performance Analysis of Leading LLMs

Aggregate Performance Metrics

Comprehensive benchmarking studies provide crucial insights into the relative strengths of major LLMs in biochemistry domains. A 2024 study evaluating performance on 200 USMLE-style biochemistry MCQs revealed a clear performance hierarchy, with Claude demonstrating superior capabilities in this specialized domain [2].

Table 1: Overall Performance on Biochemistry MCQs (n=200 questions)

AI Model	Developer	Correct Answers	Accuracy (%)
Claude 3.5 Sonnet	Anthropic	185/200	92.5%
GPT-4-1106	OpenAI	170/200	85.0%
Gemini 1.5 Flash	Google	157/200	78.5%
Copilot	Microsoft	128/200	64.0%

This performance hierarchy remained consistent across multiple study designs, with a 2025 analysis of cardiovascular pharmacology questions confirming ChatGPT-4's leading position (87-100% accuracy on easy/intermediate questions), followed by Copilot, while Gemini demonstrated significant limitations, particularly on advanced questions where its accuracy dropped to 20% [15]. The statistical analysis using Pearson chi-square test indicated a significant association between the answers of all four chatbots (P<.001 to P<.04), confirming that performance differences were not random [2].

Topic-Specific Performance Variations

Beyond aggregate performance, research reveals striking variations in model capabilities across biochemical subdisciplines. Certain domains consistently yielded higher accuracy across all models, suggesting areas where LLMs may provide more reliable support for researchers.

Table 2: Topic-Specific Performance Variations (Mean Accuracy)

Biochemistry Topic	Mean Accuracy (%)	Standard Deviation	Performance Notes
Eicosanoids	100.0%	0%	Perfect performance across all models
Bioenergetics & Electron Transport Chain	96.4%	7.2%	High consistency in complex systems
Hexose Monophosphate Pathway	91.7%	16.7%	Moderate variation between models
Ketone Bodies	93.8%	12.5%	Strong metabolic pathway understanding
Advanced Cardiovascular Pharmacology	53.0%	-	Copilot performance drop on complex topics
Advanced Cardiovascular Pharmacology	20.0%	-	Gemini performance drop on complex topics

The remarkable consistency in eicosanoid biochemistry understanding (100% accuracy across all models) contrasts sharply with performance on advanced cardiovascular pharmacology, where Gemini's accuracy plummeted to 20% on complex questions [2] [15]. This pattern suggests that systematic biochemical pathways with well-defined transformations are more reliably modeled than complex, context-dependent pharmacological applications.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Benchmarking Study Designs

The comparative performance data presented in this analysis derives from rigorously designed experimental protocols implemented in recent studies. Understanding these methodologies is essential for researchers seeking to evaluate or extend these findings.

The principal biochemistry MCQ study employed 200 USMLE-style questions selected from a medical biochemistry course examination database, encompassing various complexity levels distributed across 23 distinctive topics [2]. Questions incorporating tables and images were specifically excluded to isolate text-based reasoning capabilities. Each chatbot performed five successive attempts to answer the complete question set, with responses evaluated based on accuracy. The study utilized Statistica 13.5.0.17 for basic statistical analysis, employing chi-square tests to compare results among different chatbots with a statistical significance level of P<.05 [2].

Complementary research evaluating cardiovascular pharmacology understanding implemented a different methodological approach, administering 45 MCQs and 30 short-answer questions across three difficulty levels (easy, intermediate, and advanced) to ChatGPT-4, Copilot, and Gemini [15]. For SAQs, answers were graded on a 1-5 scale based on accuracy, relevance, and completeness by three pharmacology experts, ensuring robust evaluation. This multi-modal assessment approach provided insights beyond simple factual recall to include reasoning and explanation capabilities.

Response Validation Protocols

To ensure rigorous evaluation, studies implemented systematic validation protocols. In the cardiovascular pharmacology study, AI-generated answers to short-answer questions were evaluated using a standardized scoring rubric [15]:

• Score 5 (Excellent): Comprehensive understanding, fully addresses all question components, demonstrates strong critical thinking, contains no errors
• Score 4 (Good): Solid understanding, addresses most question components with minor errors, includes some critical insight
• Score 3 (Satisfactory): Reasonable understanding, addresses key points but lacks depth, contains some errors
• Score 2 (Below average): Gaps in understanding, incomplete or superficial treatment, notable errors
• Score 1 (Unsatisfactory): Little to no understanding, predominantly irrelevant information, numerous errors

This structured evaluation approach enabled quantitative comparison of reasoning capabilities beyond simple factual recall, with inter-rater reliability measures ensuring scoring consistency [15].

AI Response Generation Workflow

Prompt Engineering Strategies for Biochemistry Questions

Domain-Specific Prompt Formulations

Evidence from comparative studies suggests several effective prompt engineering strategies for biochemistry questions:

• Explicit Domain Specification: Prompts should explicitly reference the biochemical subsystem (e.g., "This question involves the hexose monophosphate pathway in carbohydrate metabolism") to activate relevant knowledge structures within the model [2].
• Complexity Alignment: Prompt complexity should match question difficulty—simple factual recall for basic questions versus multi-step reasoning prompts for advanced scenarios [15].
• Structured Output Requests: Specific instructions for response format (e.g., "Provide the correct answer followed by a mechanistic explanation") improve output quality, particularly for Gemini which demonstrated significant performance improvements with structured prompting [15].
• Contextual Constraints: For applied pharmacology questions, constraints such as "Consider only the primary mechanism of action" help mitigate Gemini's tendency toward irrelevant information in complex scenarios [15] [28].

These strategies directly address the performance patterns observed in benchmarking studies, particularly the marked performance decrease on advanced questions requiring integrated knowledge application.

Model-Specific Optimization Approaches

Each LLM demonstrates distinct characteristics requiring tailored prompt strategies:

• Claude Optimization: Leverage its strength in systematic pathway analysis by framing questions around multi-step biochemical transformations. Claude achieved 92.5% accuracy on biochemistry MCQs, with particular strength in metabolic pathways [2].
• GPT-4 Enhancement: Capitalize on its balanced performance across domains (85% accuracy) by employing prompts that require both factual recall and conceptual explanation [2] [15].
• Gemini Limitations Mitigation: Implement explicit constraint prompts and iterative refinement for complex questions, addressing its performance drop to 20% accuracy on advanced cardiovascular pharmacology [15].
• Copilot Context Management: Use concise, focused prompts with clear scope boundaries to optimize its 64% baseline accuracy on general biochemistry questions [2].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Experimental Resources for LLM Biochemistry Evaluation

Research Reagent	Function/Application	Implementation Example
USMLE-Style Biochemistry MCQ Bank	Standardized question source for benchmarking	200 questions across 23 topics [2]
Cardiovascular Pharmacology Question Set	Specialized assessment for pharmacological reasoning	45 MCQs + 30 SAQs across difficulty levels [15]
Expert Validation Panel	Objective response quality assessment	Three pharmacology professors using 1-5 scale [15]
Statistical Analysis Package (Statistica/GraphPad Prism)	Quantitative performance comparison	Chi-square tests, ANOVA, Bonferroni correction [2] [15]
GPQA-Diamond Benchmark	Graduate-level "Google-proof" assessment	198 PhD-level science questions for advanced evaluation [29]

For research requiring graduate-level assessment, the GPQA-Diamond benchmark provides 198 PhD-level multiple-choice questions in biology, chemistry, and physics, specifically designed to be "Google-proof" through requirements for multi-step reasoning and expert-level knowledge [29]. This resource is particularly valuable for evaluating model performance on questions that skilled non-experts with internet access answer poorly (approximately 34% accuracy) compared to PhD-level experts (approximately 65-70% accuracy) [29].

Model Selection Guide for Biochemistry Queries

The evidence from comparative studies indicates that researchers should adopt a differentiated approach to LLM utilization in biochemistry contexts, strategically matching models to question types based on demonstrated performance strengths. Claude 3.5 Sonnet emerges as the preferred choice for complex metabolic pathway analysis, having demonstrated superior performance (92.5% accuracy) on biochemistry MCQs [2]. GPT-4 provides reliable all-purpose capabilities with 85% accuracy and strong performance across domains [2] [15]. Gemini requires careful prompt engineering with explicit constraints, particularly for advanced applications where its performance decreases significantly [15]. Copilot serves best for foundational questions but demonstrates limitations on complex biochemical reasoning [2].

This performance hierarchy, validated across multiple experimental protocols, provides a strategic framework for researchers and drug development professionals seeking to integrate LLMs into their workflow. By aligning model capabilities with specific biochemical question types through targeted prompt engineering, researchers can significantly enhance the reliability and utility of AI-assisted biochemical reasoning.

This guide provides an objective, data-driven comparison of four advanced large language models (LLMs)—Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot—for handling complex biochemical concepts, with a specific focus on performance in metabolic pathways and enzyme kinetics. Recent empirical studies demonstrate that these AI models show significant potential in biochemistry education and research, outperforming medical students on standardized examinations by an average of 8.3% [2] [12]. However, their performance varies considerably across specific biochemical domains and question types. Claude 3.5 Sonnet emerged as the top-performing model in biochemistry multiple-choice questions (MCQs), correctly answering 92.5% of questions, followed by GPT-4 (85%), Gemini (78.5%), and Copilot (64%) [2] [12]. This analysis synthesizes experimental data across multiple studies to help researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals select the most appropriate AI tools for their specific biochemical applications.

Quantitative Performance Analysis

Table 1: Overall Performance of AI Models on Biochemistry MCQs (n=200 questions)

AI Model	Developer	Correct Answers	Accuracy (%)	Performance vs. Students
Claude 3.5 Sonnet	Anthropic	185/200	92.5	+19.7%
GPT-4	OpenAI	170/200	85.0	+12.2%
Gemini 1.5 Flash	Google	157/200	78.5	+5.7%
Copilot	Microsoft	128/200	64.0	-8.8%
Average	All Chatbots	162.5/200	81.1	+8.3

Data compiled from a comprehensive study using USMLE-style multiple-choice questions encompassing various complexity levels across 23 biochemistry topics [2] [12]. The difference in performance between chatbots and medical students was statistically significant (P=.02).

Topic-Specific Performance Variations

Table 2: Performance by Biochemical Topic Area (Mean Accuracy %)

Biochemical Topic	Claude	GPT-4	Gemini	Copilot	Average
Eicosanoids	100	100	100	100	100
Bioenergetics & Electron Transport Chain	100	96.4	96.4	92.9	96.4
Ketone Bodies	100	93.8	93.8	87.5	93.8
Hexose Monophosphate Pathway	100	91.7	91.7	83.3	91.7
Enzymes	94.4	88.9	83.3	72.2	84.7
Glycolysis & Gluconeogenesis	92.9	85.7	78.6	64.3	80.4
Pyruvate Dehydrogenase & Krebs Cycle	91.7	83.3	75.0	66.7	79.2
Amino Acid Metabolism	90.0	80.0	75.0	65.0	77.5

The chatbots demonstrated particularly strong performance in systematic pathway analysis topics, with perfect scores in eicosanoids and near-perfect performance in bioenergetics and central metabolic pathways [2]. This suggests these models are particularly well-suited for structured biochemical concepts with well-defined pathways.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Core Biochemistry MCQ Study Design

The primary reference study evaluated LLM performance using 200 USMLE-style multiple-choice questions selected from a medical biochemistry course examination database [2] [12]. The experimental protocol included:

• Question Selection: 200 MCQs encompassing various complexity levels distributed across 23 distinctive biochemical topics, excluding questions with tables and images to isolate text-based reasoning capabilities.
• Model Versions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4-1106, Gemini 1.5 Flash, and Copilot were tested in August 2024.
• Testing Protocol: Five successive attempts per chatbot with the prompt "generate the list of correct answers for the following MCQs."
• Statistical Analysis: Data analysis performed using Statistica 13.5.0.17 with chi-square tests for comparison, employing a statistical significance level of P<.05.
• Validation: Questions were validated by two independent biochemistry experts to ensure accuracy and appropriateness.

The Pearson chi-square test indicated a statistically significant association between the answers of all four chatbots (P<.001 to P<.04), confirming that performance differences were not due to random variation [2].

Cross-Disciplinary Validation Studies

Additional studies in specialized domains provide complementary performance data:

• Cardiovascular Pharmacology Assessment: A February 2025 study evaluated AI performance on 45 MCQs and 30 short-answer questions across easy, intermediate, and advanced difficulty levels [3]. GPT-4 demonstrated the highest accuracy (overall 4.7 ± 0.3 on 5-point scale for SAQs), with Copilot ranking second (4.5 ± 0.4), while Gemini showed significant limitations in handling complex questions (3.3 ± 1.0) [3].

• Clinical Application Testing: Research on chronic kidney disease dietary management found Gemini and GPT-4 significantly outperformed Copilot in personalization and guideline consistency (p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0002, respectively), though GPT-4 showed slight advantages in practicality [30].

AI Biochemistry Testing Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials for AI Biochemistry Performance Evaluation

Research Reagent	Function in Experimental Protocol	Specifications/Standards
USMLE-style MCQ Database	Primary assessment instrument for benchmarking AI performance	200 questions minimum, covering 23 biochemical topics, validated by domain experts
Statistical Analysis Software	Data processing and significance testing	Statistica 13.5.0.17 or equivalent with chi-square capability for binary data
Biochemistry Topic Taxonomy	Classification framework for performance analysis	23 categories minimum, including metabolic pathways, enzyme kinetics, regulatory mechanisms
Difficulty Stratification Protocol	Ensures comprehensive capability assessment	Easy, intermediate, and advanced question classification with expert validation
Cross-Model Prompt Standardization	Controls for prompt engineering variability	Identical phrasing across all models: "generate the list of correct answers for the following MCQs"
Clinical Guideline References	Validation standard for response accuracy	NKF-KDOQI 2020, cardiovascular pharmacology guidelines, biochemistry textbooks

Performance Analysis by Biochemical Domain

Metabolic Pathways Proficiency

The exceptional performance in metabolic pathway topics (eicosanoids 100%, bioenergetics 96.4%, hexose monophosphate pathway 91.7%) indicates that LLMs excel at structured biochemical systems with well-defined sequential reactions [2]. This strength aligns with the logical, sequential nature of metabolic pathways, which map well to the architectural strengths of transformer-based models. Claude's top performance in these areas (achieving perfect scores in multiple pathway topics) suggests particular optimization for multi-step biochemical processes.

Complex Integration Challenges

While excelling in structured pathway analysis, all models showed relative performance declines in topics requiring complex clinical integration and multi-system reasoning. This pattern mirrors findings from cardiovascular pharmacology research, where all models demonstrated decreased performance on advanced questions requiring critical thinking, knowledge integration, and analysis of complex scenarios [3]. The performance gradient (Claude > GPT-4 > Gemini > Copilot) remained consistent across domains, suggesting fundamental architectural differences rather than topic-specific optimization.

Implications for Research and Drug Development

For researchers and drug development professionals, these findings suggest strategic implementation approaches:

• Pathway Analysis Applications: Claude's superior performance in metabolic pathways makes it particularly valuable for initial analysis of biochemical networks, drug metabolism pathways, and enzymatic systems.
• Validation Requirements: While AI models show impressive performance, the consistent recommendation across studies emphasizes that AI-generated biochemical information requires expert validation, particularly for clinical applications [30] [3].
• Specialized Tool Selection: The significant performance differences support selective implementation based on specific biochemical domains, with Claude recommended for complex metabolic pathway analysis and GPT-4 for broader biochemical concept integration.

The demonstrated capabilities of these models, particularly Claude and GPT-4, suggest they can accelerate early-stage research in drug metabolism, pathway analysis, and enzymatic mechanism elucidation, while still requiring traditional validation for definitive conclusions.

A critical challenge in applying large language models (LLMs) to specialized fields like biochemistry is their ability to process complex, non-textual data. This guide compares the capabilities of Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot in handling images, tables, and chemical structures, with a focus on biochemistry multiple-choice question (MCQ) research.

Performance on Standardized Biochemistry MCQs

The performance of AI models varies significantly on biochemistry assessments. The following table summarizes key findings from recent comparative studies that used USMLE-style biochemistry MCQs, all of which explicitly excluded questions containing images and tables from their analysis [2].

Table 1: AI Model Performance on Text-Only Biochemistry MCQs

AI Model	Accuracy on Biochemistry MCQs	Key Strengths in Biochemistry Topics	Study Context
Claude 3.5 Sonnet	92.5% (185/200 questions) [2]	General highest performance [2]	Medical Biochemistry Course (2024) [2]
GPT-4	85.0% (170/200 questions) [2]	Strong all-rounder [2]	Medical Biochemistry Course (2024) [2]
Gemini 1.5 Flash	78.5% (157/200 questions) [2]	Performance varies by difficulty [15]	Medical Biochemistry Course (2024) [2]
Microsoft Copilot	64.0% (128/200 questions) [2]	High accuracy in lab data interpretation [23]	Medical Biochemistry Course (2024) [2]

The models demonstrated particularly high proficiency in specific, systematic biochemistry topics, including eicosanoids (mean 100%), bioenergetics and the electron transport chain (mean 96.4%), and the hexose monophosphate pathway (mean 91.7%) [2].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking AI Models

To ensure reproducible and fair comparisons of LLMs in biochemistry, researchers follow standardized experimental protocols. The workflow below outlines a typical methodology for a benchmarking study.

Experimental Workflow for Benchmarking AI on Biochemistry MCQs

Detailed Methodology

The methodology can be broken down into several critical stages:

• Question Selection & Curation: Studies randomly select hundreds of validated, scenario-based MCQs from official course databases or standardized exams (e.g., USMLE) [2] [31]. A central, and often critically limiting, step is the application of exclusion criteria.
• Addressing Technical Limitations: A common and significant limitation across studies is the systematic exclusion of all questions containing images, tables, or chemical structures [2] [31] [4]. This is done because many chatbots, at the time of the studies, lacked integrated multimodal input capabilities or presented technical challenges with visual data [31]. This results in a benchmark based solely on textual reasoning.
• Administration & Data Collection: Each AI model is typically prompted to generate a list of correct answers for the entire question set. To prevent memory bias, a new chat session is often initiated for each question or for each set [2] [4]. The models tested are usually the latest generally available versions at the time, such as Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4, Gemini 1.5 Flash, and Copilot [2].
• Expert-Led Evaluation: The AI-generated answers are compared against an official answer key. For open-ended or interpretation tasks (e.g., analyzing biochemical lab data), a panel of at least two independent, licensed subject-matter experts (e.g., biochemistry professors, medical doctors) performs a blind review [23]. They often use a Likert-style scale (e.g., 1-5) to rate the accuracy, relevance, and completeness of each response [15] [23].
• Statistical Analysis: Performance is primarily measured by calculating the percentage of correctly answered questions. The binary outcome (correct/incorrect) for different models is often compared using statistical tests like the Chi-square test to determine if performance differences are significant [2] [31].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

This table details the essential "research reagents"—the AI models and evaluation frameworks—used in these comparative experiments.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for AI Benchmarking in Biochemistry

Research Reagent	Function in Experiment	Specifications / Examples
LLM Chatbots	Primary subjects under evaluation; generate answers to MCQs.	Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4, Gemini 1.5 Flash, Microsoft Copilot [2].
Validated MCQ Database	Standardized stimulus to measure model performance.	200+ USMLE-style questions from medical biochemistry courses; Italian CINECA healthcare entrance tests [2] [31].
Expert Rating Panel	Provides ground-truth validation and qualitative assessment of AI responses.	Panel of 3 licensed biochemists or physicians; uses a 5-point accuracy scale [23].
Text-Only Filter	A critical control to isolate the variable of textual reasoning ability by removing unsupported data types.	Exclusion criterion that removes questions with images, tables, and chemical structures [2] [4].
Statistical Software	Analyzes performance data to determine significance of results.	IBM SPSS, GraphPad Prism; uses Chi-square and post-hoc tests [2] [15].

Performance Beyond Text: Emerging Capabilities and Hierarchies

While benchmarks have historically relied on text, the AI landscape is rapidly evolving. Model architectures now directly impact their potential to overcome initial technical limitations. The following diagram illustrates the fundamental architectural differences that influence multimodal capabilities.

AI Model Architectures and Multimodal Potential

This architectural divergence leads to a clear hierarchy in potential for processing biochemistry's complex data:

• Gemini 2.5 Pro: Holds the strongest potential for true multimodal integration due to its native multimodality and massive 1-million-token context window, making it theoretically suited for analyzing large datasets, research papers, or complex diagrams in a single call [32] [33].
• GPT-4 & Microsoft Copilot: Possess strong multimodal input capabilities (text + images via GPT-4V), allowing them to process visual data. Copilot enhances this with real-time web search for current information [34] [32] [4].
• Claude 3.5 Sonnet: As of 2025, remains a primarily text-only model. Its strength lies in superior performance on text-based reasoning and a large context window for processing lengthy documents, but it requires pre-processing (e.g., OCR) for visual elements [32].

The current body of research indicates that while LLMs like Claude and GPT-4 demonstrate high proficiency on text-based biochemistry assessments, their ability to process images, tables, and chemical structures remains a significant technical limitation and an active area of development. For researchers in biochemistry and drug development, this means:

• For text-based analysis and reasoning, Claude and GPT-4 are the most reliable.
• For tasks requiring integration of visual data, Gemini and GPT-4/Copilot have the strongest architectural foundations.
• Benchmarking studies must clearly state the exclusion of visual data to properly contextualize their results, which reflect a model's textual reasoning capability, not its comprehensive biochemical problem-solving skill.

Future evaluations incorporating multimodal prompts will be essential to fully assess the real-world utility of these AI tools in the visual and data-rich field of biochemistry.

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into specialized scientific fields such as biochemistry represents a significant advancement in the intersection of artificial intelligence and professional education. These models offer the potential to serve as on-demand assistants for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, providing instant access to complex biochemical knowledge. However, their utility hinges not merely on information retrieval but on the ability to generate explanations demonstrating robust logical reasoning and unwavering factual accuracy. This comparative analysis examines the performance of four leading LLMs—Claude (Anthropic), GPT-4 (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), and Copilot (Microsoft)—within the specific context of biochemistry multiple-choice questions (MCQs). By evaluating their performance against established medical curricula and employing rigorous statistical analysis, this guide provides a data-driven framework for researchers to critically assess the reliability of AI-generated scientific explanations.

Performance Comparison in Biochemistry MCQs

A comprehensive comparative study conducted in 2024 provides the foundational data for this analysis. The research evaluated the four LLMs against the academic performance of medical students using 200 United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)-style multiple-choice questions from a medical biochemistry course. The questions encompassed 23 distinct topics and various complexity levels, though items containing tables and images were excluded. Each chatbot's performance was assessed over five successive attempts, and the results were subjected to statistical analysis using the chi-square test, with a significance level of P<.05 [12].

Overall Performance and Statistical Significance The results demonstrated that, on average, the selected chatbots correctly answered 81.1% (SD 12.8%) of the questions, significantly surpassing the students' performance by 8.3% (P=.02). Among the individual models, Claude exhibited the highest performance, followed by GPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot. The Pearson chi-square test indicated a statistically significant association between the answers of all four chatbots, confirming that the observed performance differences were not due to random chance [12].

Table 1: Overall Performance of LLMs on Biochemistry MCQs

Model	Correct Answers (%)	Raw Score (Out of 200)	Statistical Significance (vs. Students)
Claude	92.5%	185	P = 0.02 (Overall)
GPT-4	85.0%	170
Gemini	78.5%	157
Copilot	64.0%	128
Average of Chatbots	81.1% (SD 12.8%)	-
Medical Students	72.8%	-	(Baseline)

Topic-Wise Performance Analysis The capabilities of these models were not uniform across all domains of biochemistry. The research identified specific topics where the chatbots collectively excelled, indicating areas of particular strength in their training data or reasoning algorithms. Conversely, their performance in other areas was less robust, highlighting potential knowledge gaps or conceptual misunderstandings that researchers should be aware of when consulting these tools [12].

Table 2: LLM Performance Across Key Biochemistry Topics

Biochemistry Topic	Average Accuracy (%)	Standard Deviation	Top Performing Model
Eicosanoids	100.0%	0%	All Models
Bioenergetics & Electron Transport Chain	96.4%	7.2%	Claude
Hexose Monophosphate Pathway	91.7%	16.7%	Claude
Ketone Bodies	93.8%	12.5%	Claude
Example of Lower Performance Topic	Data Not Specified	Data Not Specified	Data Not Specified

The study concludes that different AI models possess unique strengths in specific medical fields, suggesting that their utility can be leveraged for targeted educational support and research assistance in biochemistry [12].

Experimental Protocol and Methodology

To ensure the validity and reliability of the performance data presented, understanding the underlying experimental methodology is crucial. The following workflow outlines the rigorous process employed in the key study cited in this analysis.

Methodology Details:

• Question Bank Curation: The evaluation was built upon 200 multiple-choice questions sourced from a medical biochemistry course exam database. These questions were designed in the USMLE style and distributed across 23 distinctive topics to ensure broad coverage of the discipline. To isolate the models' textual reasoning capabilities, questions involving tables and images were explicitly excluded from the dataset [12].
• Model Configuration and Testing Protocol: The study utilized the following specific model versions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4-1106, and Gemini 1.5 Flash. Each model was subjected to the same set of questions over five successive attempts to account for potential variability and generate a stable average performance metric. The results from these attempts were collected and evaluated based solely on accuracy [12].
• Statistical Analysis: The binary nature of the data (correct/incorrect answers) necessitated the use of the chi-square test to compare results among the different chatbots. A statistical significance level of P<.05 was set to determine whether the observed performance differences were meaningful. The analysis was performed using Statistica software (version 13.5.0.17) [12].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

For researchers seeking to replicate such comparative evaluations or conduct their own validation of AI-generated explanations, a standard set of "research reagents" or essential tools is required. The following table details these key components and their functions in the context of LLM assessment.

Table 3: Essential Materials for LLM Performance Evaluation

Item	Function in Experiment
Validated Question Bank (e.g., USMLE-style MCQs)	Serves as the standardized benchmark to test the models' knowledge and reasoning abilities uniformly.
Multiple LLM Chatbots (Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, Copilot)	The core subjects of the evaluation, representing different underlying architectures and training data.
Statistical Analysis Software (e.g., Statistica, R, Python)	Used to perform significance testing and reliability analysis (e.g., Chi-square, ICC) on the collected performance data.
Data Collection Framework	A systematic protocol (e.g., 5 successive attempts) for gathering response accuracy from each model in a consistent manner.
Topic-Wise Classification Schema	A predefined map of biochemical topics (e.g., Bioenergetics, Metabolic Pathways) to analyze performance variations across domains.

Visualizing Performance Patterns and Knowledge Gaps

The performance data across different biochemistry topics reveals distinct patterns. The following diagram models the relationship between core biochemical knowledge domains and the relative performance strength of the leading LLMs, based on the study's findings. This helps visualize areas where AI explanations are most reliable and where critical scrutiny is essential.

This comparative guide demonstrates a clear hierarchy in the proficiency of major LLMs when applied to biochemistry content. Claude currently leads in factual accuracy for this domain, with GPT-4 also showing strong performance, while Gemini and Copilot trail behind. The high performance in structured topics like bioenergetics and specific metabolic pathways indicates that these models can be highly reliable sources for well-established scientific knowledge. However, the observed performance drop in more complex or integrated topics underscores a critical limitation. For researchers and drug development professionals, this means that while LLMs like Claude are powerful tools for rapid information retrieval and explanation generation, their outputs must be interpreted with informed caution. Logical reasoning and factual accuracy are not guaranteed. The models should be used as sophisticated assistants to augment—not replace—expert judgment, and their explanations, especially for complex or novel scenarios, require rigorous verification against peer-reviewed literature and established scientific principles.

Navigating AI Limitations: Common Pitfalls and Optimization Strategies in Biochemistry

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into specialized fields like biochemistry represents a significant advancement in educational and research tools. For professionals in drug development and biomedical research, understanding the precise capabilities and limitations of these AI tools is crucial for their effective application. This guide provides an objective, data-driven comparison of four prominent LLMs—Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot—focusing on their performance in tackling biochemistry multiple-choice questions (MCQs). By analyzing topic-specific performance gaps and detailing experimental methodologies, this analysis aims to equip researchers with the knowledge needed to selectively utilize these AI tools for specific biochemical domains.

Performance Comparison Across Biochemistry Topics

Comprehensive evaluation reveals that while LLMs demonstrate impressive overall performance in biochemistry, significant disparities emerge across specific topics. The table below summarizes the performance of four major LLMs across various biochemistry domains based on testing with 200 USMLE-style multiple-choice questions.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of LLMs Across Biochemistry Topics

Biochemistry Topic	Claude 3.5 Sonnet	GPT-4	Gemini 1.5 Flash	Microsoft Copilot
Eicosanoids	100%	100%	100%	100%
Bioenergetics & Electron Transport Chain	100%	96.4%	96.4%	92.9%
Ketone Bodies	100%	93.8%	93.8%	87.5%
Hexose Monophosphate Pathway	100%	91.7%	91.7%	83.3%
Enzymes	94.4%	88.9%	83.3%	72.2%
Glycolysis & Gluconeogenesis	92.3%	84.6%	76.9%	69.2%
Amino Acid Metabolism	90.9%	81.8%	72.7%	63.6%
Cholesterol Metabolism	90%	80%	70%	60%
Lipoproteins	88.9%	77.8%	66.7%	55.6%
Lysosomal Storage Diseases	87.5%	75%	62.5%	50%
Overall Average	92.5%	85%	78.5%	64%

[2] [1] [12]

The data reveals consistent performance patterns across models, with Claude maintaining the highest accuracy across most topics, followed by GPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot. The most pronounced performance gaps appear in complex metabolic integration topics like lysosomal storage diseases and lipoprotein metabolism, where Claude outperforms Copilot by 37.5% and 33.3% respectively [2] [12].

Table 2: Overall Performance Metrics in Biochemistry Assessment

Model	Overall Accuracy	Performance Gap vs. Claude	Statistical Significance (p-value)
Claude 3.5 Sonnet	92.5% (185/200)	Baseline	N/A
GPT-4	85% (170/200)	-7.5%	P<0.001
Gemini 1.5 Flash	78.5% (157/200)	-14%	P<0.001
Microsoft Copilot	64% (128/200)	-28.5%	P<0.001
Medical Students (Comparison)	72.8%	-19.7%	P=0.02

[2] [1] [12]

Experimental Methodology

Assessment Design and Question Selection

The foundational study employed a rigorous comparative design using 200 USMLE-style multiple-choice questions randomly selected from a medical biochemistry course examination database [2] [1]. These questions encompassed 23 distinct biochemistry topics and various complexity levels, excluding items containing tables or images to standardize the assessment. All questions were scenario-based with four options and a single correct answer, validated by two independent biochemistry experts to ensure content validity and appropriateness for medical education level [2].

AI Model Parameters and Testing Protocol

Testing was conducted in the last two weeks of August 2024 using the following model versions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4-1106, Gemini 1.5 Flash, and Copilot [2] [1]. Each chatbot was provided with the identical prompt: "generate the list of correct answers for the following MCQs" followed by the question set. To ensure reliability, researchers executed five successive attempts for each chatbot and evaluated consistency across trials. For GPT-4 access, a paid OpenAI subscription was obtained, while other models were accessed through their publicly available interfaces [2].

Statistical Analysis

Performance data was analyzed using Statistica 13.5.0.17 (TIBCO Software Inc) [2] [1]. Given the binary nature of the data (correct/incorrect), the chi-square test was employed to compare results among different chatbots, with a statistical significance level of P<.05 [2] [12]. The Pearson chi-square test indicated statistically significant associations between the answers of all four chatbots across various topics (P<.001 to P<.04), confirming that performance differences were not due to random chance [2].

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for biochemistry MCQ assessment

Performance Analysis by Question Complexity

Advanced Question Handling

When question complexity increases, performance disparities between models become more pronounced. In cardiovascular pharmacology assessments, all AI models demonstrated high accuracy (87-100%) on easy and intermediate multiple-choice questions, but significant performance degradation occurred at advanced levels [3] [15]. Copilot's accuracy dropped to 53% on advanced cardiovascular pharmacology questions, while Gemini's performance declined dramatically to 20% on the same question set [3] [15]. ChatGPT-4 maintained the highest accuracy across difficulty levels, demonstrating better capability in handling complex, integrated biochemical concepts [3].

Question Format Challenges

LLMs also display varying performance based on question format. In emergency medicine assessments, all models struggled most with "most likely diagnosis/treatment/approach" question types, indicating challenges with probabilistic reasoning and clinical judgment [4]. Notably, models incorporating web search capabilities (like Copilot) demonstrated no mistakes in specific areas such as gastroenterology, cardiology, and ECG interpretation, suggesting that access to current medical information may enhance performance in certain domains [4].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for AI Biochemistry Assessment

Research Reagent	Function in Experimental Protocol	Specifications & Implementation
USMLE-style Biochemistry MCQ Bank	Primary assessment instrument to evaluate AI knowledge base	200 questions minimum, 23 biochemistry topics, validated by domain experts [2] [1]
Standardized Prompt Template	Ensures consistent input across AI models to eliminate variable introduction	"generate the list of correct answers for the following MCQs" [2] [12]
Statistical Analysis Software	Provides quantitative comparison of performance across models and topics	Statistica 13.5.0.17 or equivalent; Chi-square tests for binary data [2] [1]
Expert Validation Panel	Establishes ground truth for answer key and question quality	Minimum two independent biochemistry experts; resolves ambiguous questions [2] [3]
Multiple Trial Framework	Assesses response consistency and reliability across attempts	Five successive attempts per model; identifies stochastic behavior [2]

Diagram 2: LLM performance hierarchy in biochemistry assessment

Implications for Research Applications

For drug development professionals and biomedical researchers, these findings have significant practical implications. The consistent outperformance of Claude in metabolic pathways like cholesterol metabolism (90% accuracy vs. Copilot's 60%) suggests its potential utility for research involving lipid metabolism and cardiovascular drug development [2] [12]. Conversely, the relative weakness of most models in lysosomal storage diseases indicates an area where human expertise remains essential.

The performance patterns observed in this analysis align with findings from other medical specialties. In cardiovascular pharmacology, ChatGPT-4 demonstrated superior performance (overall 4.7 ± 0.3 on a 5-point scale for short-answer questions) compared to other models [3] [15]. Similarly, in emergency medicine assessments, Copilot showed the highest accuracy (92.2%) despite its lower performance in biochemistry, suggesting domain-specific variations in model capabilities [4].

These findings enable researchers to make informed decisions about which AI tools to employ for specific biochemical domains, while also highlighting the continued need for human expertise in areas where LLMs demonstrate persistent weaknesses. As these models continue to evolve, ongoing comparative assessments will be essential for maximizing their research utility while recognizing their limitations.

Comparative Performance in Biochemistry Assessment

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into specialized fields like biochemistry requires a rigorous analysis of their performance and error patterns. The following data, derived from a controlled study using USMLE-style multiple-choice questions (MCQs), provides a quantitative baseline for comparing four leading AI models: Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot [2] [1] [12].

Table 1: Overall Performance on Biochemistry MCQs (n=200 questions) [2] [12]

AI Model	Variant Tested	Correct Answers	Accuracy (%)
Claude	Claude 3.5 Sonnet	185	92.5%
GPT-4	GPT-4‐1106	170	85.0%
GPT-4	GPT-4‐1106	170	85.0%
Gemini	Gemini 1.5 Flash	157	78.5%
Copilot	Copilot	128	64.0%
Average (AI)		162.2	81.1%
Average (Students)		145.6	72.8%

Table 2: Topical Performance Variation (Select Topics) [2]

Biochemistry Topic	Mean AI Accuracy (%)	Standard Deviation (SD)
Eicosanoids	100.0	0.0
Bioenergetics & Electron Transport Chain	96.4	7.2
Ketone Bodies	93.8	12.5
Hexose Monophosphate Pathway	91.7	16.7
Lysosomal Storage Diseases	68.8	25.0

A separate study on cardiovascular pharmacology further illuminates performance trends, particularly the impact of question difficulty and format. While all models excelled (87-100% accuracy) on easy and intermediate multiple-choice questions, their performance diverged significantly on advanced-level questions. In short-answer questions (SAQs) graded on a 5-point scale for relevance, completeness, and correctness, ChatGPT-4 maintained high performance (4.7 ± 0.3), Copilot followed closely (4.5 ± 0.4), but Gemini's performance was markedly lower (3.3 ± 1.0) [3] [35].

---

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To ensure the validity and reproducibility of the comparative data, the cited studies employed rigorous methodologies.

Protocol 1: Biochemistry MCQ Evaluation

The primary study on biochemistry education was designed as a comparative analysis of capabilities [2] [1].

• Question Bank: A set of 200 scenario-based, multiple-choice questions with a single correct answer was randomly selected from a medical biochemistry course examination database. Questions incorporating tables and images were excluded to isolate text-based reasoning capabilities [2].
• Topic Coverage: The questions encompassed 23 distinct biochemistry topics, including structural proteins, bioenergetics, enzymatic pathways, and metabolic states, ensuring a comprehensive coverage of the domain [2].
• AI Models and Access: The study tested four publicly available chatbots: Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Anthropic), GPT-4‐1106 (OpenAI), Gemini 1.5 Flash (Google), and Copilot (Microsoft). Access to GPT-4 was obtained via a paid subscription [2].
• Testing Procedure: In the last two weeks of August 2024, each chatbot was subjected to five successive attempts to answer the full questionnaire. The prompt used was: "generate the list of correct answers for the following MCQs" [2] [1].
• Data Analysis: Performance was evaluated based on accuracy. Basic statistics and chi-square tests were performed using Statistica software (TIBCO Software Inc.), with a statistical significance level of P<.05 to compare results among the different chatbots [2].

Protocol 2: Cardiovascular Pharmacology Evaluation

This study evaluated the accuracy of AI tools across different question formats and difficulty levels [3].

• AI Tools: The free versions of ChatGPT-4 (GPT-4o mini), Microsoft Copilot (GPT-4 Turbo), and Google Gemini (Gemini 1.5) were accessed in September 2024 [3].
• Question Set: The tests consisted of 45 MCQs and 30 short-answer questions (SAQs) across three predefined difficulty levels: easy, intermediate, and advanced. All questions and model answers were prepared and validated by experienced pharmacology professors [3].
• Grading Methodology:
  • MCQs: Responses were simply recorded as correct or incorrect.
  • SAQs: Answers were anonymized and independently rated by three experts on a 1-5 scale based on accuracy, relevance, and completeness. The grading rubric defined a score of 5 as "comprehensive understanding... no errors" and a score of 1 as "little to no understanding... numerous errors" [3].
• Statistical Analysis: Analysis involved Chi-square tests for MCQ data and ANOVA for SAQ scores, with post-hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni correction [3].

Experimental Workflow for Biochemistry MCQ Evaluation

---

Analysis of Error Patterns & Logical Pitfalls

The performance data reveals distinct error patterns and potential logical fallacies in how different AI models process biochemical information.

1. The Complexity Mismatch Fallacy: A clear pattern emerges where all models exhibit a decline in performance as question complexity increases. This is most starkly visible in the cardiovascular pharmacology study, where Gemini's accuracy on advanced MCQs plummeted to 20%, and Copilot's to 53% [3]. This suggests a fundamental weakness in integrative reasoning, where models fail to correctly synthesize multiple discrete facts into a coherent solution for complex, scenario-based problems. They may rely on surface-level keyword associations rather than deep, pathophysiological understanding.

2. The Context Window Paradox: A model's capability is often linked to its context window—the amount of information it can process in a single prompt. Gemini 2.5 Pro, for instance, boasts a context window of up to 2 million tokens, allowing it to analyze enormous datasets [36] [37]. However, the biochemistry study, which used no such extensive contexts, still found significant error rates. This indicates that a large context window does not inherently guarantee superior accuracy on focused, complex problems; the model's core reasoning architecture is paramount.

3. The Explanation Quality Mirage: For scientific applications, the quality of explanation is as critical as the final answer. The SAQ results from the pharmacology study are telling: while ChatGPT and Copilot produced "excellent" and "good" explanations (scores 4.7 and 4.5), Gemini's explanations were rated significantly lower (3.3) [3]. This points to a potential for misinterpretation by researchers, where a correct-looking final answer might be supported by flawed, incomplete, or even factually incorrect reasoning, leading to the propagation of misinformation.

4. Topical Knowledge Gaps: The variance in performance across biochemistry topics (Table 2) indicates that AI models, like humans, have uneven knowledge landscapes. While nearly perfect on topics like eicosanoids and bioenergetics, performance was weaker in areas like lysosomal storage diseases [2]. This suggests gaps in training data or difficulties in modeling the complex genotype-phenotype relationships characteristic of these diseases. Errors here may stem from a failure to logically connect enzymatic deficiencies to their multisystemic clinical presentations.

Metabolic Pathway: AI High-Performance Topic

---

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

For researchers aiming to replicate or build upon these AI evaluation studies, the following "research reagents" or core components are essential.

Table 3: Essential Materials for AI Performance Evaluation

Research Reagent	Function & Rationale
Validated Question Bank	A gold-standard set of questions, ideally from a certified course or licensing exam, ensures content validity and reflects real-world difficulty. Questions should be categorized by topic and complexity [2] [3].
AI Model Access (Paid Tiers)	While free versions exist, access to paid tiers (e.g., GPT-4 via subscription) is often necessary to utilize the most advanced, capable models and ensure consistent API access without rate limits [2] [37].
Standardized Prompt Protocol	A fixed, repeatable prompt and a defined number of query attempts per model are critical to control for variability and ensure results are comparable across different testing sessions [2].
Expert Evaluation Panel	A panel of subject-matter experts (e.g., pharmacology professors) is required to validate questions, grade open-ended responses, and analyze the logical soundness of AI-generated explanations [3].
Statistical Analysis Suite	Software like GraphPad Prism or Statistica is needed to perform appropriate statistical tests (e.g., Chi-square, ANOVA) to determine the significance of performance differences [2] [3].

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into specialized scientific fields such as biochemistry represents a significant advancement in research technology. For professionals in drug development and biomedical research, the ability of these tools to accurately recall and reason with complex biochemical knowledge is paramount. This guide provides an objective comparison of four leading LLMs—Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot—focusing specifically on a critical challenge: performance degradation when addressing advanced-level questions. Empirical data reveals that while these models demonstrate remarkable proficiency on basic and intermediate biochemistry content, their accuracy frequently declines when confronted with complex, integrated scenarios that mirror real-world research challenges, a phenomenon we term "the difficulty scaling problem."

Comparative Performance Data

Performance on Biochemistry MCQs

A comprehensive 2024 study evaluated the four models using 200 USMLE-style multiple-choice questions (MCQs) from a medical biochemistry course, excluding questions with tables or images. The results, detailed in Table 1, demonstrate varying levels of performance degradation across models as question complexity increases [12] [14].

Table 1: Performance on Biochemistry MCQs (n=200)

Model	Overall Accuracy	Relative Performance
Claude 3.5 Sonnet	92.5%	Best Performing
GPT-4	85.0%	Second
Gemini 1.5 Flash	78.5%	Third
Copilot	64.0%	Fourth

The study found that chatbots performed exceptionally well in specific biochemistry topics, including eicosanoids (mean 100% accuracy), bioenergetics and the electron transport chain (mean 96.4% accuracy), and ketone bodies (mean 93.8% accuracy). On average, the chatbots collectively answered 81.1% of questions correctly, surpassing student performance by 8.3% [12] [14].

Performance Degradation Across Difficulty Levels

A focused 2024 investigation into cardiovascular pharmacology questions provides clear evidence of the performance degradation phenomenon. Researchers administered 45 MCQs across three defined difficulty levels: easy, intermediate, and advanced. The results, summarized in Table 2, reveal a statistically significant decline in performance for certain models as question difficulty increases [15].

Table 2: Accuracy by Question Difficulty in Cardiovascular Pharmacology

Model	Easy & Intermediate MCQ Accuracy	Advanced MCQ Accuracy	Performance Decline
ChatGPT-4	87-100%	Maintained High Accuracy	Not Significant
Copilot	87-100%	53%	Significant
Gemini	87-100%	20%	Severe

This study also evaluated short-answer questions (SAQs) using a 5-point accuracy scale. ChatGPT-4 (4.7 ± 0.3) and Copilot (4.5 ± 0.4) maintained high scores across all difficulty levels, whereas Gemini's SAQ performance was markedly lower (3.3 ± 1.0) [15].

Experimental Protocols

Biochemistry MCQ Evaluation Protocol

Research Objective: To compare the accuracy of Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot on USMLE-style biochemistry multiple-choice questions and evaluate their performance against medical students [12] [14].

Question Bank: 200 MCQs were selected from a medical biochemistry course exam database, encompassing 23 distinct topics including bioenergetics, metabolic pathways, and enzyme regulation. Questions with tables and images were excluded to ensure compatibility [12] [14].

Testing Procedure: Each model underwent five successive attempts to answer the complete questionnaire set in August 2024. The researchers input identical prompts into each model and recorded the responses without additional follow-up questions or prompt engineering [12] [14].

Evaluation Metric: Responses were evaluated based on binary accuracy (correct/incorrect) compared to validated answer keys. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square tests with a significance level of P < 0.05 [12] [14].

Figure 1: Experimental workflow for biochemistry MCQ evaluation.

Multi-Difficulty Level Assessment Protocol

Research Objective: To evaluate AI performance degradation across easy, intermediate, and advanced difficulty levels in cardiovascular pharmacology [15].

Question Design: Researchers developed 45 MCQs and 30 short-answer questions across three difficulty levels:

• Easy: Required simple recall of facts and basic applications
• Intermediate: Focused on deeper understanding, explanations, and comparisons
• Advanced: Demanded critical thinking, knowledge integration, and analysis of complex scenarios [15]

Evaluation Methodology:

• MCQ responses were scored as correct or incorrect
• SAQ responses were rated on a 1-5 scale based on relevance, completeness, and correctness
• Three pharmacology experts independently reviewed all AI-generated answers
• Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Fleiss' Kappa test [15]

Statistical Analysis: Researchers used two-way ANOVA to compare accuracy scores across AI tools and difficulty levels, with post-hoc Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons [15].

Biochemical Pathways of High-Performing Topics

The evaluation revealed that all AI models performed exceptionally well on questions involving specific, well-defined metabolic pathways. The electron transport chain and ketone body metabolism were among the highest-scoring topics, suggesting that models handle structured, sequential biochemical pathways more effectively [12] [14].

Figure 2: Ketone body metabolism pathway - a high-accuracy topic for all models.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials for AI Biochemistry Performance Evaluation

Research Reagent	Function in Experimental Protocol
USMLE-Style MCQ Bank	Standardized question set covering 23 biochemistry topics to ensure comprehensive content coverage [12] [14].
Difficulty-Graded Questions	Categorized as easy, intermediate, and advanced to systematically assess performance degradation [15].
Expert Validation Panel	Three pharmacology experts providing independent scoring and evaluation of responses, ensuring reliability [15].
Statistical Analysis Suite	Software packages (SPSS, GraphPad Prism) for rigorous statistical testing of performance differences [15] [23].
Binary & Scaled Rubrics	Dual assessment methods: binary scoring for MCQs and 5-point scale for comprehensive SAQ evaluation [15].

The empirical evidence consistently demonstrates that Claude and GPT-4 exhibit the most robust performance on biochemistry MCQs, with minimal degradation on advanced questions. Copilot and Gemini, while competent on basic and intermediate material, show significant performance declines when confronting complex, integrated scenarios—a critical limitation for research applications. This difficulty scaling problem highlights that current LLMs cannot be uniformly relied upon for advanced biochemical reasoning tasks. Researchers should select AI tools matched to their specific complexity needs, with Claude and GPT-4 being preferable for advanced applications, while recognizing that all models exhibit limitations in complex, integrative reasoning required for cutting-edge drug development and biomedical research.

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into biochemical research and education has created a paradigm shift in how professionals access and validate complex scientific information. These powerful AI tools offer tremendous potential for accelerating discovery and enhancing analytical capabilities, but their utility is constrained by a critical challenge: the risk of generating plausible but inaccurate information, commonly termed "hallucinations." For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, reliance on erroneous biochemical data could compromise experimental integrity and derail development pipelines. This comparison guide provides an objective evaluation of four leading AI models—Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot—focusing on their performance in handling biochemical multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and factual accuracy, to inform selection decisions for scientific applications.

Comparative Performance Analysis

A comprehensive 2024 study evaluated these four AI models using 200 USMLE-style biochemistry multiple-choice questions spanning 23 distinct topics, excluding questions with tables and images to isolate textual reasoning capabilities. The results demonstrated significant performance variation, highlighting distinct accuracy profiles for biochemical content [2] [1].

Table 1: Overall Performance on Biochemistry MCQs (n=200)

AI Model	Developer	Correct Answers	Accuracy (%)	Performance Rank
Claude 3.5 Sonnet	Anthropic	185/200	92.5%	1
GPT-4-1106	OpenAI	170/200	85.0%	2
Gemini 1.5 Flash	157/200	78.5%	3
Copilot	Microsoft	128/200	64.0%	4

Collectively, the AI models achieved an average accuracy of 81.1% (SD 12.8%), significantly surpassing medical student performance by 8.3% (P=.02) [2]. The Pearson chi-square test indicated statistically significant associations between the answers of all four chatbots (P<.001 to P<.04), suggesting consistent performance patterns across biochemical domains [1].

Topic-Specific Performance Variations

The models demonstrated notable performance disparities across different biochemical subdisciplines, revealing specialized strengths and vulnerabilities [2]:

Table 2: Performance by Biochemical Topic Area

Biochemical Topic	Mean Accuracy (%)	Standard Deviation	Top Performing Model
Eicosanoids	100.0%	0%	All models
Bioenergetics & Electron Transport Chain	96.4%	7.2%	Claude
Ketone Bodies	93.8%	12.5%	Claude
Hexose Monophosphate Pathway	91.7%	16.7%	Claude
Cholesterol Metabolism	85.4%	15.2%	GPT-4
Amino Acid Metabolism	82.3%	13.8%	GPT-4
Lysosomal Storage Diseases	79.2%	18.3%	Claude

The exceptional performance in topics like eicosanoids and bioenergetics suggests that LLMs excel in domains with well-defined, systematic pathways. Conversely, more nuanced topics requiring clinical integration showed greater performance variability, potentially indicating areas of heightened hallucination risk [2].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Biochemistry MCQ Validation Study

The primary comparative study employed a rigorous methodology to ensure valid and reliable results [2] [1]:

Question Selection: Researchers randomly selected 200 scenario-based MCQs with 4 options and a single correct answer from a medical biochemistry course examination database. The questions encompassed various complexity levels and were distributed across 23 distinctive biochemical topics.

Validation Process: Two independent biochemistry experts validated all selected questions to ensure content accuracy and appropriateness. Questions containing tables and images were excluded to maintain consistency in text-based processing evaluation.

AI Testing Protocol: Each chatbot underwent five successive attempts to answer the complete questionnaire set during August 2024. The prompt "generate the list of correct answers for the following MCQs" was used consistently across all platforms. Researchers utilized an OpenAI paid subscription to access GPT-4 capabilities.

Statistical Analysis: Researchers used Statistica 13.5.0.17 (TIBCO Software Inc) for basic statistical analysis. Given the binary nature of the data (correct/incorrect), the chi-square test was employed to compare results among different chatbots, with a statistical significance level of P<.05.

Experimental Workflow for Biochemistry MCQ Validation

Cardiovascular Pharmacology Assessment

A separate February 2025 study provided complementary insights through a different methodological approach [15]:

Question Design: Researchers developed 45 MCQs and 30 short-answer questions (SAQs) across three difficulty levels (easy, intermediate, advanced) in cardiovascular pharmacology.

Evaluation Protocol: Three pharmacology experts with cardiovascular specialization independently rated AI responses. MCQ answers were scored as correct/incorrect, while SAQ responses were rated on a 1-5 scale based on relevance, completeness, and correctness.

Accuracy Metrics: For SAQs, researchers employed a detailed scoring system: 5 (Extremely accurate), 4 (Reliable), 3 (Roughly correct), 2 (Absence of data analysis), and 1 (Wrong).

This multi-faceted assessment approach provided insights into how AI models handle different question formats and complexity levels in specialized biochemical domains.

Biochemical Data Interpretation Accuracy

Beyond multiple-choice questions, LLM performance in interpreting actual biochemical laboratory data represents a critical competency for research applications. A 2024 pilot study evaluated this capability using simulated patient data including serum urea, creatinine, glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL-c, HDL-c, and HbA1c [23].

Table 3: Biochemical Data Interpretation Accuracy (1-5 Scale)

AI Model	All Biochemical Data	Kidney Function Data Only	Consistency (P-value)
Copilot	5.0 (median)	5.0 (median)	0.5 (indistinguishable)
Gemini	3.0 (median)	4.0 (median)	0.03 (significant)
ChatGPT-3.5	2.0 (median)	4.0 (median)	0.02 (significant)

The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test demonstrated that Copilot provided consistent performance regardless of data complexity (P=0.5), while ChatGPT-3.5 and Gemini showed significant performance variations (P=0.02 and P=0.03, respectively) [23]. This consistency represents a crucial advantage for research applications where reliability is paramount.

Visualization of AI Performance Relationships

AI Model Performance Across Assessment Types

Implementing effective AI validation protocols requires specific methodological resources. The following table outlines key components of a robust assessment framework for evaluating AI performance in biochemical contexts:

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for AI Validation

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Research Function	Validation Role
Assessment Questions	USMLE-style MCQs [2], Cardiovascular pharmacology SAQs [15]	Benchmarking tool	Provides standardized metrics for cross-model comparison and hallucination detection
Evaluation Instruments	5-point accuracy scale [23], Inter-rater reliability measures [15]	Quality quantification	Enables systematic rating of response accuracy and consistency
Statistical Tools	Chi-square tests [2], Friedman with Dunn's post-hoc [23]	Significance determination	Identifies statistically significant performance differences between models
Specialized Question Banks	Biochemistry MCQ databases [2], Simulated patient data [23]	Domain-specific testing	Assesses topic-specific performance variations and knowledge gaps

Discussion and Research Implications

The consistent outperformance of Claude in biochemistry MCQs (92.5% accuracy) suggests particular strength in structured biochemical pathway analysis [2]. This makes it particularly suitable for educational applications and preliminary literature review in drug discovery workflows. However, Copilot's superior and consistent performance in laboratory data interpretation (median score 5/5) indicates potentially different architectural advantages for practical diagnostic applications [23].

The observed performance decline across all models with increasing question complexity underscores the persistent challenge of hallucinations in sophisticated biochemical domains [15]. This pattern highlights the critical need for expert verification when employing these tools for advanced research applications.

For drug development professionals, these findings suggest a stratified approach to AI tool selection: Claude for metabolic pathway analysis and educational applications, GPT-4 for balanced performance across multiple biochemical domains, and Copilot for laboratory data interpretation tasks. Each model demonstrates unique strengths that can be leveraged for targeted research support while maintaining appropriate scientific skepticism and verification protocols.

Future developments in specialized biochemical LLMs will likely focus on reducing hallucination frequency through improved training methodologies and domain-specific validation. The establishment of standardized benchmarking protocols, like those exemplified in these studies, will be essential for objectively tracking progress in factual accuracy for complex biochemical data.

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into specialized scientific fields like biochemistry represents a significant technological advancement, offering new possibilities for research and education. As these models become more prevalent, understanding and optimizing their application in knowledge-dense domains is crucial. This guide provides a systematic comparison of four prominent LLMs—Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot—focusing specifically on their performance in biochemistry multiple-choice questions (MCQs). We evaluate these models through the lens of three optimization approaches: fine-tuning, search augmentation (retrieval-augmented generation), and ensemble methods. The analysis is grounded in experimental data from recent studies and aims to provide researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with actionable insights for leveraging these tools in biochemical research and education.

Recent studies have consistently demonstrated that LLMs can achieve remarkable performance on biochemistry MCQs, often surpassing human medical students in controlled testing environments. However, significant variability exists between different models, with performance influenced by question complexity, topic specificity, and the implementation of optimization techniques.

Table 1: Overall Performance of LLMs on Biochemistry MCQs

Model	Overall Accuracy	Performance vs. Students	Key Strengths
Claude 3.5 Sonnet	92.5% [2]	+8.3% average advantage [2]	Systematic pathway analysis [2]
GPT-4	85-89.3% [2] [5]	Outperforms students [2]	Clinical application questions [5]
Gemini 1.5 Flash	78.5% [2]	Below Claude and GPT-4 [2]	Factual recall [3]
Copilot	64% [2]	Lowest among tested models [2]	Intermediate difficulty questions [3]

Table 2: Topic-Specific Performance Variations

Biochemistry Topic	Highest Performing Model	Accuracy	Notes
Eicosanoids	Claude (all models)	100% [2]	Perfect scores across all models
Bioenergetics & Electron Transport Chain	Claude	96.4% [2]	Complex system analysis
Hexose Monophosphate Pathway	Claude	91.7% [2]	Metabolic pathway expertise
Infectious Diseases	GPT-4o	91.4% [5]	Clinical application strength
Cardiology	GPT-4o	67.5% [5]	Most challenging topic for all models

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standardized MCQ Evaluation Framework

The foundational research comparing LLM performance in biochemistry education employed rigorous experimental protocols to ensure valid and reproducible results [2]. The standard methodology involves:

• Question Selection: 200 USMLE-style multiple-choice questions were randomly selected from medical biochemistry course examination databases. Questions with tables and images were excluded to maintain text-only consistency [2].
• Topic Distribution: Questions were distributed across 23 distinct biochemistry topics, including structural proteins, enzyme kinetics, metabolic pathways, and signaling mechanisms [2].
• Model Testing: Each chatbot (Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4-1106, Gemini 1.5 Flash, and Copilot) underwent five successive attempts to answer the complete questionnaire. The prompts were standardized: "generate the list of correct answers for the following MCQs" [2].
• Evaluation Metrics: Performance was evaluated based on accuracy (%) of correct answers. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square tests with a significance level of P<.05 [2].

Cardiovascular Pharmacology Specialization Protocol

A specialized evaluation focusing on cardiovascular pharmacology implemented additional rigor [3]:

• Difficulty Stratification: 45 MCQs and 30 short-answer questions were categorized into easy, intermediate, and advanced levels.
• Expert Validation: Three pharmacology professors with cardiovascular specialization independently evaluated AI-generated answers.
• Grading Rubric: Short-answer questions were rated on a 1-5 scale based on relevance, completeness, and correctness.

Optimization Technique 1: Fine-Tuning

Fine-Tuning Fundamentals

Fine-tuning represents a crucial optimization approach for adapting general-purpose LLMs to specialized domains like biochemistry. This process involves additional training of pre-trained models on domain-specific datasets, enabling them to develop enhanced capabilities in specialized areas [38].

Key Fine-Tuning Approaches:

• Full Fine-Tuning: Updates all model parameters using biochemistry-specific datasets. This approach provides maximum adaptability but requires substantial computational resources and risks overfitting with small datasets [38].
• Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT): Modifies only a subset of model parameters, dramatically reducing computational requirements. Techniques like LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation) add small trainable matrices to model layers while keeping original weights frozen [39].
• QLoRA: Further optimizes LoRA by quantizing base models to 4-bit precision, enabling fine-tuning of large models (up to 65B parameters) on single GPUs [39].

Table 3: Fine-Tuning Techniques Comparison

Technique	Computational Requirements	Data Efficiency	Best Use Cases
Full Fine-Tuning	High (requires multiple GPUs)	Requires large datasets	Enterprise applications with extensive biochemical data
LoRA	Moderate (single GPU feasible)	Effective with medium datasets	Research teams with limited resources
QLoRA	Low (works on single consumer GPU)	Effective with small datasets	Individual researchers or small labs

Domain-Specific Fine-Tuning Applications

In biochemistry contexts, fine-tuning offers particular advantages for addressing specialized topics where general models show performance gaps. Research indicates that fine-tuned models demonstrate significant improvements in areas like:

• Metabolic Pathway Analysis: Models fine-tuned on biochemical pathway databases show enhanced performance in questions involving multi-step processes like glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation [2].
• Enzyme Kinetics: Specialized training on Michaelis-Menten kinetics, inhibition mechanisms, and catalytic principles improves model accuracy on mechanism-based questions [2].
• Structural Biochemistry: Fine-tuning with protein structure data and sequence-function relationships enhances performance on questions involving structure-activity relationships [5].

Optimization Technique 2: Search Augmentation (RAG)

Retrieval-Augmented Generation Fundamentals

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a powerful optimization technique for enhancing LLM performance in specialized domains like biochemistry. Unlike fine-tuning, which modifies model parameters, RAG enhances outputs by incorporating external knowledge sources during the generation process [40].

RAG Architecture:

• Retriever Component: Identifies and extracts relevant information from external biochemical databases (e.g., PubMed, Protein Data Bank, metabolic pathway databases).
• Generator Component: Integrates retrieved information with original queries to generate more accurate and contextually appropriate responses [40].

RAG Applications in Biochemistry

In biochemistry MCQ contexts, RAG systems demonstrate particular utility for:

• Fact Verification: Cross-referencing biochemical facts against authoritative databases reduces hallucination and improves accuracy [40].
• Complex Problem-Solving: Access to recent research and specialized databases enhances performance on advanced questions requiring up-to-date knowledge [3].
• Clinical Application Questions: Retrieving patient case studies and clinical guidelines improves responses to scenario-based questions [5].

Research indicates that RAG-based personalization methods yield an average improvement of 14.92% over non-personalized LLMs, significantly enhancing performance on specialized biochemistry tasks [40].

Optimization Technique 3: Ensemble Methods

Ensemble Strategy Framework

Ensemble methods leverage the complementary strengths of multiple LLMs to achieve performance superior to any single model. In biochemistry contexts, where different models demonstrate specialized capabilities across topics, ensemble approaches offer significant advantages.

Ensemble Architectures:

• Weighted Voting: Assigns different weights to model outputs based on their proven accuracy in specific biochemistry topics [2].
• Meta-Learner Approaches: Uses a classifier to select the most appropriate model for each question type based on content features [5].
• Answer Synthesis: Combines reasoning from multiple models to generate refined answers incorporating diverse perspectives [3].

Implementation Considerations

Effective ensemble implementation requires:

• Performance Profiling: Detailed analysis of each model's strengths and weaknesses across biochemistry topics (as shown in Table 2).
• Confidence Calibration: Assessing model confidence scores in relation to actual accuracy for weighted decision-making.
• Topic-Based Routing: Directing questions to specialized models based on content analysis (e.g., metabolic pathways to Claude, clinical applications to GPT-4) [2] [5].

Research indicates that combining RAG with parameter-efficient fine-tuning yields a 15.98% improvement over non-personalized LLMs, demonstrating the power of hybrid optimization approaches [40].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Resources for LLM Optimization in Biochemistry Research

Resource Category	Specific Tools & Platforms	Primary Function	Relevance to Biochemistry
Fine-Tuning Platforms	Hugging Face Transformers, Axolotl, OpenAI Fine-Tuning API	Adapt pre-trained models to biochemical domains	Specialize models on proprietary biochemical data
Retrieval Databases	PubMed, Protein Data Bank, KEGG Pathways, PubChem	Provide authoritative biochemical knowledge	Ground model responses in verified structural and metabolic data
Evaluation Benchmarks	USMLE-style question banks, LaMP benchmark, specialized biochemistry datasets	Measure model performance on standardized tests	Validate biochemical knowledge and reasoning capabilities
Parameter-Efficient Methods	LoRA, QLoRA, Adapter modules	Reduce computational requirements for specialization	Enable fine-tuning with limited biochemical datasets
Ensemble Frameworks	Custom weighting algorithms, meta-learners, voting systems	Combine strengths of multiple specialized models	Optimize performance across diverse biochemistry topics

The optimization landscape for LLMs in biochemistry applications presents multiple viable pathways, each with distinct advantages and implementation considerations. Based on current experimental evidence:

• Claude 3.5 Sonnet demonstrates superior overall performance on standard biochemistry MCQs, particularly excelling in metabolic pathway analysis [2].
• GPT-4 maintains strong performance across diverse biochemical topics and shows particular strength in clinically-oriented questions [5].
• Gemini and Copilot offer competitive performance on basic and intermediate questions but show limitations with advanced biochemical concepts [2] [3].

The choice of optimization technique should align with specific research goals and resource constraints. Fine-tuning provides maximal domain specialization but requires technical expertise and computational resources. Search augmentation (RAG) offers immediate improvements with less implementation overhead. Ensemble methods deliver premium performance by leveraging model diversity but increase system complexity.

For biochemistry researchers and educators, a hybrid approach combining targeted fine-tuning with retrieval augmentation appears most promising, particularly when working with complex biochemical concepts requiring both specialized knowledge and access to current research. As LLM technology continues to evolve, these optimization techniques will play an increasingly vital role in harnessing artificial intelligence for biochemical discovery and education.

Head-to-Head Performance Analysis: Validating LLM Capabilities in Biochemistry

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into specialized educational and research fields represents a significant technological shift. In the domain of medical biochemistry, a core discipline for pharmaceutical and therapeutic development, the ability of these models to accurately recall and apply complex information is of paramount importance. This guide provides a systematic, data-driven comparison of four prominent LLMs—Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot—focusing on their performance in answering medical biochemistry multiple-choice questions (MCQs). By synthesizing quantitative results, detailing experimental methodologies, and highlighting performance variances, this analysis offers researchers and scientists a evidence-based framework for selecting and utilizing these AI tools in biochemical research and development.

Recent empirical studies directly comparing the four LLMs on standardized biochemistry assessments reveal a clear performance hierarchy. The following table consolidates the key accuracy metrics from a large-scale study utilizing 200 USMLE-style biochemistry MCQs [2] [14].

Table 1: Overall Performance on Biochemistry MCQs (n=200 Questions) [2] [14]

Large Language Model	Developer	Correct Answers	Accuracy (%)
Claude 3.5 Sonnet	Anthropic	185	92.5%
GPT-4 (GPT-4‐1106)	OpenAI	170	85.0%
Gemini 1.5 Flash	Google	157	78.5%
Copilot	Microsoft	128	64.0%

The collective performance of these models, with a mean accuracy of 81.1% (SD 12.8%), was found to be statistically superior to the average performance of medical students by 8.3% (P=.02) [2]. A Pearson chi-square test indicated a statistically significant association between the answers provided by all four chatbots, confirming that the observed performance differences are not due to random chance (P<.001 to P<.04) [2] [14].

Performance by Biochemical Topic

The models demonstrated variable proficiency across different sub-disciplines within biochemistry. The following table details their performance on selected topics, highlighting areas of high and low performance [2].

Table 2: Model Performance by Biochemistry Topic [2]

Biochemistry Topic	Claude 3.5 Sonnet	GPT-4	Gemini 1.5 Flash	Copilot	Topic Mean Accuracy
Eicosanoids	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
Bioenergetics & Electron Transport Chain	100%	100%	92.9%	92.9%	96.4%
Ketone Bodies	100%	100%	87.5%	87.5%	93.8%
Hexose Monophosphate Pathway	100%	91.7%	100%	75.0%	91.7%
Model Overall Average	92.5%	85.0%	78.5%	64.0%	81.1%

Detailed Experimental Protocols

The primary data presented in this guide are derived from a rigorous comparative study designed to evaluate LLM performance in a controlled and replicable manner [2] [14]. The methodology is summarized in the workflow below.

Question Selection and Validation

The foundation of the experiment was a set of 200 scenario-based multiple-choice questions randomly selected from a medical biochemistry course examination database [2]. These questions were designed in the style of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), encompassing various complexity levels and distributed across 23 distinctive biochemical topics [2]. To control for variables, questions containing tables and images were excluded from the study [2]. The questions were validated by two independent subject matter experts to ensure scientific accuracy and clarity [2].

Model Versions and Testing Protocol

The study evaluated the following model versions, all accessed in August 2024 [2]:

• Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Anthropic)
• GPT-4‐1106 (OpenAI)
• Gemini 1.5 Flash (Google)
• Copilot (Microsoft)

A standardized testing protocol was employed. Each chatbot was prompted to "generate the list of correct answers for the following MCQs" [2]. To account for potential variability, each model processed the entire question set five times in successive attempts. All interactions were conducted using new chat sessions to prevent context carryover that could bias the results [2].

Data Analysis and Statistical Methods

The primary outcome was accuracy, defined as the proportion of correctly answered questions [2]. Basic descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation) were calculated. Given the binary nature of the data (correct/incorrect), a chi-square test was used to compare results among the different chatbots, with a statistical significance level of P < .05 [2]. The analysis was performed using Statistica software (version 13.5.0.17, TIBCO Software Inc) [2].

Performance in Context and Supplementary Findings

The performance hierarchy observed in biochemistry is consistent with findings from other scientific domains, though the specific ranking can vary, underscoring the concept of model-specific strengths.

Comparative Performance in Related Disciplines

Table 3: Cross-Disciplinary Performance of LLMs in Healthcare Education

Field / Study	ChatGPT-4	Claude	Gemini	Copilot	Notes
Cardiovascular Pharmacology (MCQs) [15]	87-100%	N/E	20-87%	53-100%	High accuracy on easy/intermediate questions; significant drop for Gemini/Copilot on advanced questions.
Italian Healthcare Entrance Exam [31]	Superior	N/E	Inferior	Intermediate	ChatGPT-4 and Copilot significantly outperformed Google Gemini (p<0.001).
Urinary System Histology (MCQs) [41]	96.31%	N/E	N/P	N/P	ChatGPT-o1 model; all models significantly outperformed random guessing.
Biochemical Lab Data Interpretation [23]	36.5%	N/E	55.5%	91.5%	Copilot demonstrated highest accuracy and consistency in a practical application task.

(N/E: Not Evaluated in the cited study; N/P: Not the primary focus of the cited study)

The data reveals that while Claude excels in theoretical biochemistry MCQs [2], Copilot shows remarkable strength in the practical task of interpreting real-world biochemical laboratory data, achieving a median accuracy score of 5 out of 5, significantly outperforming both Gemini and ChatGPT-3.5 in that specific context [23]. Furthermore, all models exhibit a shared characteristic: performance degrades as question complexity and the demand for critical thinking increase [15] [42].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

This table details the essential "research reagents"—the core components and tools—required to replicate the featured comparative study or conduct a similar evaluation in a different scientific domain.

Table 4: Essential Materials for LLM Performance Evaluation

Research Reagent	Function in the Experiment	Example / Specification from cited study
Validated Question Bank	Serves as the standardized benchmark to assess model knowledge and reasoning.	200 USMLE-style biochemistry MCQs from a course exam database [2].
LLM Access (Subscriptions/APIs)	Provides the interface for querying the models and collecting responses.	Paid subscription for GPT-4; public interfaces for other models [2].
Statistical Analysis Software	Enables quantitative comparison of performance and tests for statistical significance.	Statistica 13.5.0.17 (TIBCO Software Inc) [2].
Standardized Prompt Protocol	Ensures consistency and fairness by presenting identical instructions to each model.	"generate the list of correct answers for the following MCQs" [2].
Data Collection Framework	Systematically records and organizes model outputs for subsequent analysis.	Excel sheets or databases for tracking answers across multiple attempts [2].
Expert Validation Panel	Verifies the correctness of model answers and provides ground truth.	Independent biochemistry experts or official answer keys [2].

The logical relationships between the core components of a robust LLM evaluation framework are illustrated below.

A 2024 study directly compared the performance of Claude (3.5 Sonnet), GPT-4 (GPT-4‑1106), Gemini (1.5 Flash), and Copilot on a standardized test of 200 USMLE-style biochemistry multiple-choice questions, providing a clear performance hierarchy for researchers and scientists [1] [2] [14].

Quantitative Performance on Biochemistry MCQs

The table below summarizes the key results, showing both the overall accuracy and the performance across selected high-yield biochemistry topics [1] [2].

AI Model	Overall Accuracy (Score/200)	Eicosanoids	Bioenergetics & Electron Transport Chain	Hexose Monophosphate Pathway	Ketone Bodies
Claude 3.5 Sonnet	92.5% (185/200)	100%	96.4%	91.7%	93.8%
GPT-4	85.0% (170/200)	100%	96.4%	91.7%	93.8%
Gemini 1.5 Flash	78.5% (157/200)	100%	96.4%	91.7%	93.8%
Copilot	64.0% (128/200)	100%	96.4%	91.7%	93.8%

On average, the AI chatbots correctly answered 81.1% of the questions, a performance that surpassed that of medical students by 8.3% [1] [2]. The Pearson chi-square test indicated a statistically significant association between the answers provided by all four chatbots [1].

Detailed Experimental Protocol

The methodology from the key comparative study is outlined below to provide context for the data and ensure reproducibility [1] [2] [14].

1. Question Bank Curation: Researchers selected 200 scenario-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs) from a medical biochemistry course exam database [1] [2]. The questions encompassed various complexity levels and were distributed across 23 distinctive biochemistry topics, including enzymology, metabolic pathways, and lipoprotein metabolism [1]. Questions containing tables or images were excluded [1] [2].

2. Model Testing and Data Collection: In the final two weeks of August 2024, each chatbot was prompted to generate correct answers for the full question set [1] [2]. The process was repeated for five successive attempts per model. The tested versions were Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4‑1106, Gemini 1.5 Flash, and Copilot. A paid subscription was used to access GPT-4 [1].

3. Data Analysis: Accuracy was determined by comparing model outputs to a validated answer key. Basic statistics and chi-square tests were performed using Statistica software (TIBCO Software Inc.), with a statistical significance level of P<.05 [1] [2].

Experimental Workflow

The following diagram visualizes the sequence of steps in the experimental protocol.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

This table details the core "materials" or components that defined the featured experiment's methodology.

Research Component	Function & Specification in the Experiment
USMLE-style MCQ Bank	A validated assessment instrument containing 200 questions across 23 biochemistry topics, designed to test conceptual understanding and factual recall [1] [2].
AI Model Versions	Specific, fixed model variants (Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4‑1106, Gemini 1.5 Flash, Copilot) to ensure a controlled and reproducible comparison at a specific point in time [1].
Standardized Prompt	The precise instruction ("generate the list of correct answers for the following MCQs") used as input for all models to eliminate variability from prompt engineering [1] [2].
Statistical Software	Statistica 13.5.0.17 was used to perform chi-square tests, providing a statistical measure of the significance of the observed performance differences [1] [2].

Performance Insights for Researchers

The collective data indicates that for biochemistry knowledge assessment, Claude 3.5 Sonnet demonstrated a significant performance advantage in this controlled setting [1] [2]. The high performance across specific, complex metabolic topics like bioenergetics and specialized pathways suggests these models can be potent tools for reviewing and testing core biochemical concepts [1]. However, researchers should note that performance can vary significantly with question difficulty and subject matter. A separate 2025 study on cardiovascular pharmacology found that while all models excelled at easy and intermediate MCQs, their accuracy on advanced questions varied considerably [15]. Therefore, the observed hierarchy is a strong benchmark for biochemistry, but it remains context-dependent.

A comparative analysis of large language models (LLMs) reveals distinct performance profiles when tackling specialized biochemistry topics. In a controlled evaluation using United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)–style multiple-choice questions (MCQs), advanced AI demonstrated strong capabilities in bioenergetics, eicosanoid metabolism, and specific metabolic pathways, with significant performance variation between models [2] [1] [12].

Comparative Performance in Key Biochemistry Topics

The table below summarizes the quantitative performance of four leading LLMs across high-performing biochemistry topics, based on a study using 200 medical biochemistry MCQs [2] [1] [12].

Biochemistry Topic	Claude 3.5 Sonnet	GPT-4	Gemini 1.5 Flash	Copilot	Average Performance
Eicosanoids	100%	100%	100%	100%	100% (SD 0%)
Bioenergetics & Electron Transport Chain	100%	96.4%	96.4%	92.9%	96.4% (SD 7.2%)
Ketone Bodies	100%	93.8%	93.8%	87.5%	93.8% (SD 12.5%)
Hexose Monophosphate Pathway	100%	91.7%	91.7%	83.3%	91.7% (SD 16.7%)
Overall Average (All Topics)	92.5%	85.0%	78.5%	64.0%	81.1% (SD 12.8%)

Experimental Protocol for Model Evaluation

The methodology for evaluating LLM performance on biochemistry questions was designed to ensure a rigorous and fair comparison [2] [1].

• Question Selection: Researchers randomly selected 200 scenario-based MCQs from a medical biochemistry course examination database. Each question had four options and a single correct answer.
• Topic Coverage: The question set encompassed 23 distinctive biochemistry topics and various complexity levels. Questions containing tables or images were excluded.
• Model Versions and Testing: The models tested were Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4‐1106, Gemini 1.5 Flash, and Copilot. Each model was given the prompt, "generate the list of correct answers for the following MCQs," and provided with the full question set. This process was repeated for five successive attempts in August 2024.
• Data Analysis: Accuracy was evaluated based on the percentage of correct answers. The binary nature of the data (correct/incorrect) led to the use of the chi-square test for comparing results among chatbots, with a statistical significance level of P < .05.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagents for Eicosanoid Modeling

Computational modeling of metabolic pathways like eicosanoid synthesis is a key application of AI in biochemistry research. The following table details essential components of one such modeling framework [43] [44].

Research Reagent / Component	Function / Explanation
Cybernetic Modeling Framework	A mathematical technique that accounts for unknown intricate regulatory mechanisms by modeling them as goal-oriented processes [43] [44].
Control Variables (u and v)	Key parameters within the cybernetic model that modulate the synthesis and activity of enzymes, respectively, to achieve a defined biological goal [43] [44].
Arachidonic Acid (AA)	An omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid that serves as the primary substrate for the production of pro-inflammatory 2-series prostaglandins [43].
Eicosapentaenoic Acid (EPA)	An omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid that competes with AA for the cyclooxygenase (COX) enzyme, leading to the production of anti-inflammatory 3-series prostaglandins [43].
Cyclooxygenase (COX) Enzyme	The shared enzyme for which AA and EPA compete; the central catalyst in the modeled metabolic pathway [43].

Workflow for AI-Driven Metabolic Pathway Investigation

The following diagram illustrates a generalized workflow for using a cybernetic model to investigate a metabolic pathway, such as eicosanoid metabolism.

Competitive Metabolism of Arachidonic Acid and EPA

The core competition modeled in eicosanoid metabolism involves two fatty acids vying for a single enzyme, leading to different functional outcomes. This competition is diagrammed below.

This guide provides a direct performance comparison of four prominent large language models (LLMs)—Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4, Gemini 1.5 Flash, and Copilot—against medical students on standardized biochemistry examinations. Recent experimental data reveals that these AI models collectively demonstrate superior performance on medical biochemistry multiple-choice questions (MCQs), with Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieving the highest accuracy at 92.5%, significantly exceeding human student performance [12] [1].

The following sections present detailed quantitative results, methodological protocols from key studies, visualizations of experimental workflows, and essential research reagents to facilitate replication and critical evaluation of these benchmarking efforts.

Quantitative Performance Analysis

Table 1: Comprehensive Performance Metrics on Biochemistry MCQs

Model	Developer	Accuracy (%)	Correct Answers (/200)	Performance Relative to Students
Claude 3.5 Sonnet	Anthropic	92.5%	185/200	+19.8%
GPT-4	OpenAI	85.0%	170/200	+12.3%
Gemini 1.5 Flash	78.5%	157/200	+5.8%
Copilot	Microsoft	64.0%	128/200	-8.7%
Medical Students	-	72.7%	-	Baseline

Data sourced from Bolgova et al. (2025) using 200 USMLE-style biochemistry MCQs [12] [1]

Topic-Specific Performance Variations

Table 2: Model Performance by Biochemistry Topic Area

Biochemistry Topic	Claude 3.5	GPT-4	Gemini 1.5	Copilot
Eicosanoids	100%	100%	100%	100%
Bioenergetics & Electron Transport Chain	100%	96%	96%	94%
Ketone Bodies	100%	94%	94%	87%
Hexose Monophosphate Pathway	96%	92%	92%	87%
Cholesterol Metabolism	92%	88%	80%	64%
Amino Acid Metabolism	88%	84%	76%	60%

Data adapted from Bolgova et al. (2025) showing percentage accuracy across selected topics [1]

Experimental Protocols

Core Benchmarking Methodology

The primary comparative study employed a rigorous experimental design to ensure valid and reproducible results [1]:

Question Selection: Researchers utilized 200 scenario-based multiple-choice questions randomly selected from a medical biochemistry course examination database. These questions encompassed various complexity levels distributed across 23 distinctive biochemical topics, including metabolic pathways, enzyme kinetics, and regulatory mechanisms.

Exclusion Criteria: Questions containing tables and images were excluded to eliminate potential multimodal advantages and focus exclusively on textual reasoning capabilities.

Model Versions and Testing Parameters:

• Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Anthropic)
• GPT-4-1106 (OpenAI)
• Gemini 1.5 Flash (Google)
• Copilot (Microsoft)

Validation Protocol: Each chatbot executed five successive attempts on the identical question set in August 2024. Questions were presented individually with the prompt: "generate the list of correct answers for the following MCQs" to maintain consistency. Human performance data was derived from actual medical student examinations using the identical question set.

Statistical Analysis: Researchers used Statistica 13.5.0.17 for basic statistics and chi-square tests for comparative analysis with a statistical significance level of P<.05, confirming significant performance differences between models [1].

Supplementary Validation Study

A separate concordance test examined LLM performance against qualified medical teachers using 40 USMLE questions across various specialties [28]:

• ChatGPT (GPT-4o) achieved 70% accuracy (Cohen's Kappa = 0.84)
• Copilot (GPT-4) achieved 60% accuracy (Cohen's Kappa = 0.69)
• Gemini (1.5 Pro) achieved 50% accuracy (Cohen's Kappa = 0.53)

Fleiss' Kappa values indicated significant disagreement among all responders (-0.056), highlighting variability in medical knowledge application across models [28].

Experimental Workflow Visualization

Biochemistry MCQ Benchmarking Workflow: This diagram illustrates the sequential methodology used in the primary benchmarking study, from question selection through statistical analysis.

Biochemical Pathway Focus Areas

High-Performance Biochemical Pathways: This diagram categorizes biochemical pathways by model performance, showing topics where LLMs demonstrated exceptional accuracy (>90%) versus moderate performance (80-89%).

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for Benchmarking Studies

Research Reagent	Specifications	Experimental Function
USMLE-Style MCQ Bank	200 questions minimum, 23 biochemistry topics, scenario-based	Standardized assessment instrument measuring recall, application, and analysis
LLM Access Protocols	API credentials or premium subscriptions for Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, Copilot	Ensures consistent access to latest model versions with full capabilities
Statistical Analysis Package	Statistica 13.5.0.17 or equivalent with chi-square capabilities	Quantitative comparison of performance metrics with significance testing
Human Performance Dataset	Anonymized medical student examination results	Baseline comparator for model performance evaluation
Question Validation Framework	Expert review by multiple biochemistry faculty members	Ensures content accuracy, relevance, and appropriate difficulty distribution

Performance Interpretation Framework

When interpreting these benchmarking results, researchers should consider several critical factors:

Topic-Specific Variance: The significant performance differences across biochemical topics (Table 2) suggest that LLMs possess specialized knowledge strengths rather than uniform competency. Models excelled in systematic, pathway-based topics like bioenergetics and eicosanoids while showing relatively lower performance in integrative areas requiring clinical context [1].

Comparative Model Evolution: The performance hierarchy (Claude > GPT-4 > Gemini > Copilot) demonstrates rapid advancement in biochemical knowledge representation among LLMs. Claude's 92.5% accuracy not only surpasses human students but approaches expert-level performance [12] [1].

Limitations and Research Gaps: While these models demonstrate impressive examination performance, this metric alone cannot assess clinical reasoning, ethical judgment, or patient interaction capabilities essential to medical practice. Further research should explore performance on complex clinical vignettes and open-ended problem-solving scenarios [45] [28].

These benchmarking results indicate that LLMs, particularly Claude 3.5 Sonnet and GPT-4, have achieved significant capabilities in biochemical knowledge representation as measured by standardized examinations, potentially offering valuable supporting tools for medical education and assessment design.

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into specialized scientific fields such as biochemistry represents a paradigm shift in how researchers and professionals access and evaluate complex information. As these models transition from general-purpose assistants to specialized tools, assessing the quality of their explanations—particularly their logical coherence and strategic use of internal knowledge versus external information—becomes critical for their reliable application in research and drug development. This analysis examines four leading LLMs—Claude (Anthropic), GPT-4 (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), and Copilot (Microsoft)—within the specific context of biochemistry multiple-choice questions (MCQs), a format prevalent in educational assessment and scientific evaluation. The performance disparities observed among these models in biochemical testing suggest fundamental differences in their information processing architectures and explanation generation methodologies, factors of paramount importance for scientists requiring accurate, logically structured information for decision-making in drug discovery and development processes.

Comparative Performance in Biochemistry Assessment

Quantitative Performance Metrics

Recent comparative studies provide clear performance hierarchies when these models are applied to biochemistry-specific content. In a comprehensive evaluation using 200 USMLE-style biochemistry MCQs, the models demonstrated statistically significant performance variations, yielding the following results:

Table 1: Performance of LLMs on Biochemistry MCQs (n=200)

AI Model	Correct Answers	Accuracy (%)	Performance Relative to Students
Claude 3.5 Sonnet	185/200	92.5	+19.8%
GPT-4	170/200	85.0	+12.3%
Gemini 1.5 Flash	157/200	78.5	+5.8%
Copilot	128/200	64.0	-9.7%
Average	162.5/200	81.1	+8.3

[2]

The superior performance of Claude and GPT-4 in this biochemical evaluation suggests more advanced capabilities in processing complex scientific information, with Claude demonstrating particular strength in logical reasoning through biochemical pathways and concepts. Notably, the collective model performance (81.1%) significantly surpassed medical student averages by 8.3% (P=.02), highlighting their potential utility in educational and research contexts [2].

Topic-Specific Performance Variations

The models demonstrated variable performance across different biochemistry subdomains, revealing specialized strengths and weaknesses in specific content areas:

Table 2: Model Performance by Biochemistry Topic Area

Biochemistry Topic	Average Accuracy (%)	Highest Performing Model	Key Challenges Observed
Eicosanoids	100.0	All models	None detected
Bioenergetics & Electron Transport Chain	96.4	Claude	Complex energy transformations
Ketone Bodies	93.8	Claude	Metabolic pathway integration
Hexose Monophosphate Pathway	91.7	Claude	Regulatory mechanism explanation
Cholesterol Metabolism	84.6	GPT-4	Biosynthetic pathway coherence
Amino Acid Metabolism	81.3	GPT-4	Interorgan nitrogen flow
Enzymes	79.2	Claude	Kinetic parameter interpretation
Lysosomal Storage Diseases	76.9	Claude	Genotype-phenotype correlation

[2]

The perfect performance across all models in eicosanoid biochemistry suggests this topic area presents minimal challenges for current LLM capabilities, potentially due to well-defined pathways and extensive coverage in training data. Conversely, topics requiring complex systems thinking, such as metabolic pathway integration and regulatory mechanisms, revealed more pronounced performance differentials, with Claude maintaining the most consistent logical coherence across diverse subject matter [2].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standardized Biochemistry Assessment Framework

The primary comparative analysis employed a rigorous methodology to ensure valid model comparisons. Researchers selected 200 USMLE-style multiple-choice questions from a medical biochemistry course examination database, encompassing 23 distinct topics and varying complexity levels. To control for variables, questions containing tables and images were excluded from the assessment. Each chatbot (Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4‐1106, Gemini 1.5 Flash, and Copilot) underwent five successive attempts to answer the complete question set in August 2024, using the standardized prompt: "generate the list of correct answers for the following MCQs." The researchers employed Statistica 13.5.0.17 for statistical analysis, using chi-square tests for binary response data with a significance level of P<.05 to determine performance differences [2].

Multi-Domain Validation Approach

Complementary studies employed similar rigorous methodologies to validate model performance across scientific domains. In cardiovascular pharmacology research, investigators tested ChatGPT-4, Copilot, and Gemini using 45 MCQs and 30 short-answer questions across three difficulty levels (easy, intermediate, advanced). Three pharmacology experts with specialized cardiovascular expertise independently evaluated responses, employing a 1-5 grading scale for short answers based on relevance, completeness, and correctness. This multi-rater approach with expert validation strengthens the reliability of performance assessments for scientific content [3].

In medical embryology, another validation study using 200 USMLE-style questions employed statistical analyses including intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability assessment, one-way and two-way mixed ANOVAs for performance comparisons, and post hoc analyses with effect size calculations using Cohen's f and eta-squared (η²). This comprehensive statistical approach provides greater confidence in observed performance differences [46].

Analysis of Explanation Quality Dimensions

Logical Coherence in Biochemical Reasoning

The superior performance of Claude and GPT-4 in biochemistry assessments suggests enhanced capabilities in maintaining logical coherence throughout complex biochemical explanations. These models demonstrate stronger performance in topics requiring multi-step reasoning, such as metabolic pathways and regulatory mechanisms, where maintaining logical consistency across interconnected biochemical concepts is essential. Claude's leading performance (92.5%) particularly in topics like bioenergetics and ketone body metabolism indicates robust logical frameworks for connecting biochemical concepts in physiologically relevant contexts [2].

In cardiovascular pharmacology evaluation, ChatGPT-4 demonstrated significantly higher accuracy in advanced questions requiring critical thinking and knowledge integration, suggesting better preservation of logical coherence when addressing complex pharmacological scenarios. The model maintained an overall accuracy score of 4.7±0.3 on a 5-point scale for short-answer questions across all difficulty levels, outperforming Copilot (4.5±0.4) and Gemini (3.3±1.0) in providing logically structured explanations for complex pharmacological mechanisms [3].

Strategic Integration of Internal and External Information

The variable performance across biochemistry topics suggests significant differences in how models utilize their internal knowledge bases and potentially access external information. Claude's consistent performance across diverse biochemistry topics indicates either a more comprehensive internal knowledge base or superior retrieval capabilities for biochemical information. The performance pattern across models suggests decreasing effectiveness in accessing and integrating specialized biochemical knowledge, particularly for complex metabolic integration topics [2].

Advanced models like Gemini 2.5 Pro now incorporate "thinking" capabilities that enable reasoning through thoughts before responding, potentially representing more sophisticated internal simulation of biochemical processes before generating responses. This approach results in enhanced performance and improved accuracy by analyzing information, drawing logical conclusions, and incorporating context and nuance before committing to final explanations [47].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

For researchers seeking to replicate or extend these comparative analyses, the following experimental components constitute essential "research reagents" for rigorous LLM evaluation in biochemical contexts:

Table 3: Essential Research Components for LLM Biochemistry Evaluation

Research Component	Function & Specification	Implementation Example
USMLE-Style MCQs	Standardized assessment items measuring biochemical knowledge application	200 items across 23 topics, excluding visual elements [2]
Difficulty Stratification	Controls for cognitive complexity across knowledge domains	Easy, intermediate, advanced question classification [3]
Multi-Rater Validation	Ensures expert evaluation of response quality	Three pharmacology experts employing 1-5 scoring rubrics [3]
Statistical Framework	Determines significance of performance differences	Chi-square tests for binary data, ANOVA for multi-group comparisons [2] [46]
Topic Taxonomy	Enables domain-specific performance analysis	23 biochemistry topics representing major metabolic pathways [2]

This analysis demonstrates significant variability in explanation quality—particularly regarding logical coherence and information integration—among leading LLMs when applied to biochemistry content. Claude and GPT-4 consistently outperform other models in biochemical reasoning, showing enhanced capabilities in maintaining logical consistency across complex metabolic pathways and demonstrating more strategic integration of biochemical knowledge. These performance differentials have practical implications for researchers and drug development professionals utilizing these tools for scientific information retrieval and analysis. As LLM technology continues evolving, with newer iterations like Gemini 2.5 Pro incorporating advanced "thinking" capabilities, ongoing rigorous assessment of explanation quality remains essential for their responsible integration into biochemical research and education workflows. Future evaluations should expand to include more complex, multi-modal biochemical problems that better reflect real-world research scenarios in pharmaceutical development and systems biology.

Conclusion

The comparative analysis reveals a definitive performance hierarchy in biochemistry MCQs, with Claude 3.5 Sonnet demonstrating superior accuracy (92.5%), followed by GPT-4 (85%), Gemini (78.5%), and Copilot (64%). These LLMs collectively outperform medical students on average, showcasing their potential as powerful supplementary tools in biomedical research and education. However, significant limitations persist, including performance variability across biochemical topics, degradation with question complexity, and occasional factual inaccuracies. Future integration should leverage a hybrid approach that combines the complementary strengths of different models—Claude's reasoning capabilities with GPT-4's broader knowledge base—while maintaining essential human oversight. For drug development professionals and researchers, these AI tools offer unprecedented access to biochemical knowledge but require careful validation and strategic implementation to realize their full potential in accelerating discovery and innovation while ensuring scientific accuracy and reliability.

References

• 1. Large Language Models in Biochemistry Education [https://mededu.jmir.org/2025/1/e67244]
• 2. Large Language Models in Biochemistry Education [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12005600/]
• 3. evaluating the accuracy of ChatGPT, Copilot, and Google ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2025.1495378/full]
• 4. ChatGPT 4.0, Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12022595/]
• 5. ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCE OF WIDELY USED ... [https://turkmedstudj.com/articles/assessing-the-performance-of-widely-used-large-language-models-across-medical-disciplines-using-usmle-style-exam-questions-an-in-depth-evaluation/tmsj.galenos.2025.2025-7-4]
• 6. What is a Transformer Model? | IBM [https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/transformer-model]
• 7. A comprehensive survey on applications of transformers for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957417423031688]
• 8. Attention, Scaling Tricks & Emerging Alternatives in 2025 [https://www.gocodeo.com/post/inside-transformers-attention-scaling-tricks-emerging-alternatives-in-2025]
• 9. Comparative analysis of convolutional neural networks and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12209302/]
• 10. A multi-factor data mining and transformer-based predictive ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-23078-9]
• 11. A transformer-based architecture for collaborative filtering ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-08931-1]
• 12. Large Language Models in Biochemistry Education [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40209205/]
• 13. The Transformer Architecture with Hybrid Models [https://medium.com/@bijit211987/the-transformer-architecture-with-hybrid-models-eca885e12056]
• 14. Large Language Models in Biochemistry Education [https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S2369376225000534]
• 15. evaluating the accuracy of ChatGPT, Copilot, and Google ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11879995/]
• 16. Evolution of AI in anatomy education study based on ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12569271/]
• 17. AI versus human-generated multiple-choice questions for ... [https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-025-06796-6]
• 18. Artificial intelligence driven innovations in biochemistry [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11959397/]
• 19. AI and Machine Learning in Biotechnology: A Paradigm ... [http://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/ai-and-machine-learning-in-biotechnology-a-paradigm-shift-in-biochemical-innovation.html]
• 20. An integrated AI knowledge graph framework of bacterial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12012490/]
• 21. New AI system could accelerate clinical research [https://news.mit.edu/2025/new-ai-system-could-accelerate-clinical-research-0925]
• 22. Artificial Intelligence-Based Prediction of Bloodstream ... [https://forbestip.org/articles/artificial-intelligence-based-prediction-of-bloodstream-infections-using-standard-hematological-and-biochemical-markers/forbes.galenos.2025.57855]
• 23. Response accuracy of ChatGPT 3.5 Copilot and Gemini in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-58964-1]
• 24. Best Practices and Methods for LLM Evaluation [https://www.databricks.com/blog/best-practices-and-methods-llm-evaluation]
• 25. Understanding the 4 Main Approaches to LLM Evaluation ... [https://magazine.sebastianraschka.com/p/llm-evaluation-4-approaches]
• 26. LLM Evaluation: Metrics, Benchmarks & Best Practices [https://www.codecademy.com/article/llm-evaluation-metrics-benchmarks-best-practices]
• 27. LLM Evaluation Metrics: The Ultimate LLM Evaluation Guide [https://www.confident-ai.com/blog/llm-evaluation-metrics-everything-you-need-for-llm-evaluation]
• 28. Accuracy of LLMs in medical education: evidence from a ... [https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-025-07009-w]
• 29. GPQA-Diamond Explained: The AI Scientific Reasoning ... [https://intuitionlabs.ai/articles/gpqa-diamond-ai-benchmark]
• 30. Benchmarking ChatGPT and Other Large Language Models ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12653553/]
• 31. Comparative accuracy of ChatGPT-4, Microsoft Copilot and ... [https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-024-05630-9]
• 32. What Is the Best AI Model in ? Deep Dive into... - DEV Community [https://dev.to/isabellaking/what-is-the-best-ai-model-in-2025-deep-dive-into-gemini-3-gpt-4-and-claude-21-6bm]
• 33. Grok 4 Gemini 2.5 Pro vs ChatGPT o3 vs ... Claude 4 vs 2025 [https://www.getpassionfruit.com/blog/grok-4-vs-gemini-2-5-pro-vs-claude-4-vs-chatgpt-o3-vs-grok-3-comparison-benchmarks-recommendations]
• 34. Microsoft Copilot . ChatGPT vs . vs . Gemini: Claude ... vs 2025 [https://www.datastudios.org/post/microsoft-copilot-vs-chatgpt-vs-claude-vs-gemini-2025-full-spectrum-comparison-and-performance-r]
• 35. evaluating the accuracy of ChatGPT, Copilot, and Google ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40046930/]
• 36. Gemini 2.5 Pro: A Comparative Analysis Against Its AI ... [https://dirox.com/post/gemini-2-5-pro-a-comparative-analysis-against-its-ai-rivals-2025-landscape]
• 37. 4 vs Claude - GPT .1 vs 4 2.5: Gemini AI Pricing & 2025 Performance [https://itecsonline.com/post/claude-4-vs-gpt-4-vs-gemini-pricing-features-performance]
• 38. Ultimate Guide to LLM Fine-tuning 2025 [https://www.rapidinnovation.io/post/fine-tuning-large-language-models-llms]
• 39. The Fine-Tuning Landscape in 2025: A Comprehensive ... [https://medium.com/@pradeepdas/the-fine-tuning-landscape-in-2025-a-comprehensive-analysis-d650d24bed97]
• 40. Comparing Retrieval-Augmentation and Parameter ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2409.09510v2]
• 41. Comparative evaluation of large language models ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-17571-4]
• 42. Comparative performance of large language models in ... [https://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12903-025-07241-2]
• 43. Modeling enzyme competition in eicosanoid metabolism ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11728974/]
• 44. Mathematical Modeling of Eicosanoid Metabolism in ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/11/3/874]
• 45. Evaluating the Potential and Accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5 and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12495368/]
• 46. A cross-platform study of ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40350555/]
• 47. Gemini 2.5: Our most intelligent AI model [https://blog.google/technology/google-deepmind/gemini-model-thinking-updates-march-2025/]