ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
Assessing DeepSeek-R1 for Clinical Decision Support in Multidisciplinary Laboratory Medicine.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance Evaluation of GPT-5, Grok 4, and DeepSeek R1 in Interpreting Complete Blood Count Reports for Hematologic Diseases: Retrospective Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Large Language Models in Infectious Disease Decision-Making: From Examination to Clinical Practice.Infection and drug resistance · 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
Background: Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly with large language models (LLMs), are transforming healthcare by enhancing diagnostic decision-making and clinical workflows. The application of LLMs like DeepSeek-R1 in clinical laboratory medicine demonstrates potential for improving diagnostic accuracy, supporting decision-making, and optimizing patient care. Objective: This study evaluates the performance of DeepSeek-R1 in analyzing clinical laboratory cases and assisting with medical decision-making. The focus is on assessing its accuracy and completeness in generating diagnostic hypotheses, differential diagnoses, and diagnostic workups across diverse clinical cases. Methods: We analyzed 100 clinical cases from Results: DeepSeek-R1 achieved an overall accuracy of 72.9% (95% CI [69.9%, 75.7%]) and completeness of 73.4% (95% CI [70.5%, 76.2%]). Performance varied by question type: the highest accuracy was observed for diagnostic hypotheses (85.7%, 95% CI [81.2%, 89.2%]) and the lowest for differential diagnoses (55.0%, 95% CI [49.3%, 60.5%]). Notable variations in performance were also seen across disease categories, with the best performance observed in genetic and obstetric diagnostics (accuracy 93.1%, 95% CI [84.0%, 97.3%]; completeness 86.1%, 95% CI [76.4%, 92.3%]). Conclusion: DeepSeek-R1 demonstrates potential for a decision-support tool in clinical laboratory medicine, particularly in generating diagnostic hypotheses and recommending diagnostic workups. However, its performance in differential diagnosis and handling specific clinical nuances remains limited. Future work should focus on expanding training data, integrating clinical ontologies, and incorporating physician feedback to improve real-world applicability. DeepSeek-R1 and the new versions under development may be promising tools for non-medical professionals and professionals in medical laboratory diagnoses.
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.