ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Battle of the artificial intelligence: a comprehensive comparative analysis of DeepSeek and ChatGPT for urinary incontinence-related questions.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications of DeepSeek in Medicine: Bibliometric Analysis and Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Transforming Urological Care With Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: From Digital Assistants to Clinical Partners.International neurourology journal · 2026Review
- Evaluating AI-generated patient education materials for endometrial cancer surgery: a comparative analysis of response quality, reliability, and readability between ChatGPT and DeepSeek models.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Multidimensional assessment of large language model responses to patient questions on gestational diabetes mellitus.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the rapid advancement and widespread adoption of artificial intelligence (AI), patients increasingly turn to AI for initial medical guidance. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation of AI-generated responses is warranted. This study aimed to compare the performance of DeepSeek and ChatGPT in answering urinary incontinence-related questions and to delineate their respective strengths and limitations. Methods: Based on the American Urological Association/Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine & Urogenital Reconstruction (AUA/SUFU) and European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines, we designed 25 urinary incontinence-related questions. Responses from DeepSeek and ChatGPT-4.0 were evaluated for reliability, quality, and readability. Fleiss' kappa was employed to calculate inter-rater reliability. For clinical case scenarios, we additionally assessed the appropriateness of responses. A comprehensive comparative analysis was performed. Results: The modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) scores for DeepSeek and ChatGPT-4.0 were 28.24 ± 0.88 and 28.76 ± 1.56, respectively, showing no practically meaningful difference [ Conclusion: DeepSeek and ChatGPT-4.0 might exhibit comparable reliability in answering urinary incontinence-related questions, though both lacked sufficient references. However, DeepSeek outperformed ChatGPT-4.0 in response quality and readability. While both AI chatbots largely adhered to clinical guidelines, occasional deviations were observed. Further refinements are necessary before the widespread clinical implementation of AI chatbots in urology.
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.