Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40864882›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2025

Performance of DeepSeek and GPT Models on Pediatric Board Preparation Questions: Comparative Evaluation.

Masab Mansoor, Andrew Ibrahim, Ali Hamide

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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.

Masab MansoorLouisiana Campus, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, 4408 Bon Aire Dr, Monroe, LA, 71203, United States, 1 5045213500.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-4501-7016
Andrew IbrahimSchool of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3035-8014
Ali HamideLouisiana Campus, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, 4408 Bon Aire Dr, Monroe, LA, 71203, United States, 1 5045213500.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-6251-3350

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligenceboard examinationChatGPTDeepSeeklarge language modelsmedical educationpediatrics

Identifiers

PMID40864882
PMCPMC12384676

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.