ArticleJMIR AI2025
Performance of DeepSeek and GPT Models on Pediatric Board Preparation Questions: Comparative Evaluation.
Article in JMIR AI, 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 of large language models in neonatal resuscitation assessments versus healthcare providers: an exploratory study.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Comparing Artificial intelligence to physicians' competences in the domain of clinical reasoning: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentReview
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: Limited research exists evaluating artificial intelligence (AI) performance on standardized pediatric assessments. This study evaluated 3 leading AI models on pediatric board preparation questions. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the performance of 3 leading large language models (LLMs) on pediatric board examination preparation questions and contextualize their performance against human physician benchmarks. Methods: We analyzed DeepSeek-R1, ChatGPT-4, and ChatGPT-4.5 using 266 multiple-choice questions from the 2023 PREP Self-Assessment. Performance was compared to published American Board of Pediatrics first-time pass rates. Results: DeepSeek-R1 exhibited the highest accuracy at 98.1% (261/266 correct responses). ChatGPT-4.5 achieved 96.6% accuracy (257/266), performing at the upper threshold of human performance. ChatGPT-4 demonstrated 82.7% accuracy (220/266), comparable to the lower range of human pass rates. Error pattern analysis revealed that AI models most commonly struggled with questions requiring integration of complex clinical presentations with rare disease knowledge. Conclusions: DeepSeek-R1 demonstrated exceptional performance exceeding typical American Board of Pediatrics pass rates, suggesting potential applications in medical education and clinical support, though further research on complex clinical reasoning is needed.
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.