ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2025
Comparison of ChatGPT and DeepSeek large language models in the diagnosis of pericarditis.
Article in World journal of cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Applications of DeepSeek in Medicine: Bibliometric Analysis and Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe integration of sophisticated large language models (LLMs) into healthcare has recently garnered significant attention due to their ability to leverage deep learning techniques to process vast datasets and generate contextually accurate, human-like responses. These models have been previously applied in medical diagnostics, such as in the evaluation of oral lesions. Given the high rate of missed diagnoses in pericarditis, LLMs may support clinicians in generating differential diagnoses-particularly in atypical cases where risk stratification and early identification are critical to preventing serious complications such as constrictive pericarditis and pericardial tamponade.
aimTo compare the accuracy of LLMs in assisting the diagnosis of pericarditis as risk stratification tools.
methodsA PubMed search was conducted using the keyword "pericarditis", applying filters for "case reports". Data from relevant cases were extracted. Inclusion criteria consisted of English-language reports involving patients aged 18 years or older with a confirmed diagnosis of acute pericarditis. The diagnostic capabilities of ChatGPT o1 and DeepThink-R1 were assessed by evaluating whether pericarditis was included in the top three differential diagnoses and as the sole provisional diagnosis. Each case was classified as either "yes" or "no" for inclusion.
resultsFrom the initial search, 220 studies were identified, of which 16 case reports met the inclusion criteria. In assessing risk stratification for acute pericarditis, ChatGPT o1 correctly identified the condition in 10 of 16 cases (62.5%) in the differential diagnosis and in 8 of 16 cases (50.0%) as the provisional diagnosis. DeepThink-R1 identified it in 8 of 16 cases (50.0%) and 6 of 16 cases (37.5%), respectively. ChatGPT o1 demonstrated higher accuracy than DeepThink-R1 in identifying pericarditis.
conclusionFurther research with larger sample sizes and optimized prompt engineering is warranted to improve diagnostic accuracy, particularly in atypical presentations.
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.