ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Medical reasoning in LLMs: an in-depth analysis of DeepSeek R1.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.
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
33 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Exploring large language models as a prescription decision support tool for rational antibiotic use: A dual-framework analysis using standardized examinations and real-world clinical cases.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Prompt Design and Internal Reasoning in Chatbot-Based Medical History Taking: Simulation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Foundation models in biomedical imaging: turning hype into reality.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Applications of DeepSeek in Medicine: Bibliometric Analysis and Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes and reporting quality of large language model interventions in practice: a systematic evidence map.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Accuracy, readability, and content coverage of AI-generated responses to questions on functional appliances.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- The Performance of DeepSeek R1 and Gemini 3 in Complex Medical Scenarios: Comparative Study.JMIRx med · 2026Article
- Benchmarking Large Language Models on the Taiwan Neurology Board Examinations (2018-2024): A Comparative Evaluation of GPT-4o, GPT-o1, DeepSeek-V3, and DeepSeek-R1.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- AI for clinical neurology: Comparing five large language models in neurological diagnosis and lesion localization.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT-4o on the Chinese national medical licensing examination: a multi-year comparative study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Performance and safety of a fine-tuned small language model for pediatric emergency triage: A benchmark study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Large Language Models in Infectious Disease Decision-Making: From Examination to Clinical Practice.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Performance of deepseek-R1 and ChatGPT-5.4 thinking in the medical laboratory professional title examination: accuracy, stability, and comparison with interns.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- A comparative study of four large language models in treatment decision-making for Hip impingement syndrome based on real-world data.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Psychological mechanisms underlying medical students' continued use of DeepSeek: an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- SPARROW: subtyping Parkinson's disease with agentic reasoning and robust omics workflow.NPJ artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- From algorithms to operating room: can large language models master China's attending anesthesiology exam? A cross-sectional evaluation.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Reasoning vs. conventional large language models for BI-RADS educational questions answering: a multi-model comparative evaluation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Performance of DeepSeek and ChatGPT on the Chinese Health Professional and Technical Examination: A comparative study.PloS one · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The integration of large language models (LLMs) into healthcare holds immense promise, but also raises critical challenges, particularly regarding the interpretability and reliability of their reasoning processes. While models like DeepSeek R1-which incorporates explicit reasoning steps-show promise in enhancing performance and explainability, their alignment with domain-specific expert reasoning remains understudied. Methods: This paper evaluates the medical reasoning capabilities of DeepSeek R1, comparing its outputs to the reasoning patterns of medical domain experts. Results: Through qualitative and quantitative analyses of 100 diverse clinical cases from the MedQA dataset, we demonstrate that DeepSeek R1 achieves 93% diagnostic accuracy and shows patterns of medical reasoning. Analysis of the seven error cases revealed several recurring errors: anchoring bias, difficulty integrating conflicting data, limited consideration of alternative diagnoses, overthinking, incomplete knowledge, and prioritizing definitive treatment over crucial intermediate steps. Discussion: These findings highlight areas for improvement in LLM reasoning for medical applications. Notably the length of reasoning was important with longer responses having a higher probability for error. The marked disparity in reasoning length suggests that extended explanations may signal uncertainty or reflect attempts to rationalize incorrect conclusions. Shorter responses (e.g., under 5,000 characters) were strongly associated with accuracy, providing a practical threshold for assessing confidence in model-generated answers. Beyond observed reasoning errors, the LLM demonstrated sound clinical judgment by systematically evaluating patient information, forming a differential diagnosis, and selecting appropriate treatment based on established guidelines, drug efficacy, resistance patterns, and patient-specific factors. This ability to integrate complex information and apply clinical knowledge highlights the potential of LLMs for supporting medical decision-making through artificial medical reasoning.
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.