Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40607450›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025

Medical reasoning in LLMs: an in-depth analysis of DeepSeek R1.

Birger Moëll, Fredrik Sand Aronsson, Sanian Akbar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Birger MoëllDivision of Speech, Music and Hearing, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Fredrik Sand AronssonDivision of Speech and Language Pathology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Sanian AkbarStockholm Health Care Services, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AI in medicineDeepSeek R1LLMmedical benchmarkingmedical reasoningreasoning models

Identifiers

PMID40607450
PMCPMC12213874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.