ArticleJournal of medical systems2025
Evaluating the Performance of DeepSeek-R1 as a Patient Education Tool.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 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.
- Decoding AI Competence: Benchmarking Large Language Models (LLMs) in Ovarian Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment-A Systematic Evaluation of Generative AI Accuracy and Completeness.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of the quality, reliability, and readability of five large language model responses to frequently asked questions on gestational hypertension.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The cost-effective open-source artificial intelligence (AI) model DeepSeek-R1 in China holds significant potential for healthcare applications. As a health education tool, it could help patients acquire health science knowledge and improve health literacy. Low back pain (LBP), the most common musculoskeletal problem globally, has seen increasing use of large language model (LLM)-based AI chatbots by patients to access health information, making it critical to further examine the quality of such information. This study aimed to evaluate the response quality and readability of answers generated by DeepSeek-R1 to common patient questions about LBP. Ten questions were formulated using inductive methods based on literature analysis and Baidu Index data, which were presented to DeepSeek-R1 on March 10, 2025. The evaluation spanned readability, understandability, actionability, clinician assessment, and reference assessment. Readability was measured using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease Scale, Gunning Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG Index). Understandability and actionability were assessed via the Patient Education Materials and Assessment Tool for Printable Materials (PEMAT-P). Clinicians evaluated accuracy, completeness, and correlation. A reference evaluation tool was used to assess reference quality and the presence of hallucinations. Readability analysis indicated that DeepSeek's responses were overall "difficult to read", with Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (mean 12.39, SD 1.91), Flesch Reading Ease Scale (mean 19.55, Q1 12.94, Q3 29.78), Gunning Fog Index (mean 13.95, SD 2.61), Coleman-Liau Index (mean 17.46, SD 2.30), and SMOG Index (mean 11.04, SD 1.37). PEMAT-P revealed good understandability but weak actionability. Consensus among five clinicians confirmed satisfactory accuracy, completeness, and relevance. References Assessment identified 9 instances (14.8%) of hallucinated references, while Supporting was rated as moderate, with most references sourced from authoritative platforms. Our study demonstrates the potential of DeepSeek-R1 in the educational content for patients with LBP. It can be employed as a supplement to patient education tools rather than substituting for clinical judgment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41212429What 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.