ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Evaluation of the accuracy and repeatability of Deepseek V3, Doubao, and Kimi1.5 in answering knowledge-related queries about chronic non-bacterial osteitis.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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.
- Evaluation of the Reliability and Quality of Nursing Care Plans Produced by Artificial Intelligence Models for Patients Experiencing Anaphylactic Shock: A Methodological and Exploratory Investigation.Florence Nightingale journal of nursing · 2026Article
- Evaluating AI chatbots for providing health advice on occupational sedentary behavior in the workplace.Frontiers in public health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There are significant differences in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic non-bacterial osteitis (CNO), and there is an urgent need for health education efforts to enhance awareness of this condition. Deepseek V3, Doubao, and Kimi1.5 are highly popular language models in China that can provide knowledge related to diseases. This article aims to investigate the accuracy and reproducibility of the responses provided by these three artificial intelligence (AI) language models in answering questions about CNO. Methods: According to the latest expert consensus, 16 questions related to CNO were collected. The three AI language models were separately asked these questions at three different times. The answers were independently evaluated by two orthopedic experts. Results: Among the responses of the three AI models to 16 CNO-related questions across three rounds of testing, only Doubao received "Completely incorrect" ratings (accounting for 6.25%) in the third round of scoring by Reviewer 2. During the answering process, Doubao had the shortest response time and provided the most words in its answers. In the first and third rounds of scoring by the first expert, Kimi scored the highest (3.938 ± 0.342, 3.875 ± 0.873), while in the second round, Doubao scored the highest (3.875 ± 0.5). In the second round of scoring by the second expert, Doubao received the highest score (3.812 ± 0.403). In the first and third rounds, Kimi1.5 received the highest score (3.812 ± 0.602, 3.812 ± 0.704). Conclusion: Deepseek V3, Doubao, and Kimi1.5 are capable of answering most questions related to CNO with good accuracy and reproducibility, showing no significant differences.
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.