ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative performance of Chinese and international large language models on the Chinese radiology attending physician qualification examination.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Application of AI-assisted PBL-CBL combined teaching in the diagnosis and treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia: a randomised controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluates the accuracy and reliability of six large language models (LLMs)-three Chinese (Doubao, Kimi, DeepSeek) and three international (ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 2.0 Pro, Grok3)-in radiology, using simulated questions from the 2025 Chinese Radiology Attending Physician Qualification Examination (CRAPQE). Analysis covered 400 CRAPQE-simulated questions, spanning various formats (A1, A2-A4, B, C-type) and modalities (text-only, image-based). Expert radiologists scored responses against official answer keys. Performance comparisons within and between Chinese and international LLM groups assessed overall, unit-specific, question-type-specific, and modality-specific accuracy. All LLMs passed the CRAPQE simulation, showing proficiency comparable to a radiology attending. Chinese LLMs achieved a higher mean accuracy (87.2%) than international LLMs (80.4%, P < 0.05), excelling in text-only and A1-type questions (P < 0.05). DeepSeek (91.6%) and Doubao (89.5%) outperformed Kimi (80.5%, P < 0.0167), while international LLMs showed no significant differences (P > 0.05). All models surpassed the passing threshold on image-based questions but performed worse than on text questions, with no group difference (P > 0.05). This pioneering comparison highlights the potential of LLMs in radiology, with Chinese models outperforming their international counterparts, likely due to localized training, providing evidence to guide the development of medical AI.
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.