ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Systematic benchmarking of large Language models in programmed cell death-oriented gastric cancer research: a comparative analysis of DeepSeek‑V3, DeepSeek‑R1, and Claude 3.5.
Article in Discover oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Applications of DeepSeek in Medicine: Bibliometric Analysis and Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe intended to compare three language models (DeepSeek‑V3, DeepSeek‑R1, and Claude 3.5) regarding their ability to address programmed cell death mechanisms in gastric cancer. We aimed to establish which model most accurately reflects clinical standards and guidelines.
methodsFifty-five frequently posed questions and twenty guideline-oriented queries on cell death processes were collected from recognized gastroenterology and oncology resources. Each model received every question individually. Six independent specialists, each from a distinct hospital, rated responses from 1 to 10, and their scores were summed to a 60-point total. Answers achieving totals above 45 were classified as "good," 30 to 45 as "moderate," and below 30 as "poor." Models that delivered "poor" replies received additional prompts for self‑correction, and revised answers underwent the same review.
resultsDeepSeek‑R1 showed higher total scores than the other two models in almost every topic, particularly for surgical protocols and multimodal therapies. Claude 3.5 ranked second, displaying mostly coherent coverage but occasionally omitting recent guideline updates. DeepSeek‑V3 had difficulty with intricate guideline-based material. In "poor" responses, DeepSeek‑R1 corrected errors markedly, shifting to a "good" rating upon re-evaluation, while DeepSeek‑V3 improved only marginally. Claude 3.5 consistently moved its "poor" answers up into the moderate range.
conclusionDeepSeek‑R1 demonstrated the strongest performance for clinical content linked to programmed cell death in gastric cancer, while Claude 3.5 performed moderately well. DeepSeek‑V3 proved adequate for more basic queries but lacked sufficient detail for advanced guideline-based scenarios. These findings highlight the potential and limitations of such automated models when applied in complex oncologic contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.