ArticleJMIR AI2025
Detection of Medical Misinformation in Hemangioma Patient Education: Comparative Study of ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1 Large Language Models.
Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study examines the capability of large language models (LLMs) in detecting medical rumors, using hemangioma-related information as an example. It compares the performances of ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy, stability, and expert-rated reliability of 2 LLMs, ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1, in classifying medical information related to hemangiomas as either "rumors" or "accurate information." Methods: We collected 82 publicly available texts from social media platforms, medical education websites, international guidelines, and journals. Of the 82 items, 47/82 (57%) were labeled as "rumors," and 35/82 (43%) were labeled as "accurate information." Three vascular anomaly specialists with extensive clinical experience independently annotated the texts in a double-blinded manner, and disagreements were resolved by arbitration to ensure labeling reliability. Subsequently, these texts were input into ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1, with each model generating 2 rounds of results under identical instructions. Output stability was assessed using bidirectional encoder representations from transformers-based semantic similarity scores. Classification accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score were calculated to evaluate the performance. Additionally, 2 medical experts independently rated the model outputs using a 5-point scale based on clinical guidelines. Statistical analyses included paired t tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and bootstrap resampling to compute confidence intervals. Results: In terms of semantic stability, the similarity distributions for the 2 models largely overlapped, with no statistically significant difference observed (mean difference=-0.003, 95% CI -0.011 to 0.005; P=.30). Regarding classification performance, DeepSeek-R1 achieved higher accuracy (0.963) compared to ChatGPT-4o (0.910), and also performed better in terms of precision (0.978 vs 0.940), recall (0.957 vs 0.894), and F1-score (0.967 vs 0.916). Expert evaluations revealed that DeepSeek-R1 significantly outperformed ChatGPT-4o on both "rumor" items (mean difference=0.431; P<.001; Cohen dz=0.594) and "accurate information" items (mean difference=0.264; P=.045; Cohen dz=0.352), with a particularly pronounced advantage in rumor detection. Conclusions: DeepSeek-R1 demonstrated greater accuracy and rationale in detecting medical rumors compared with ChatGPT-4o. This study provides empirical support for the application of LLMs and recommends optimizing accuracy and incorporating real-time verification mechanisms to mitigate the harmful impact of misleading information on patient health.
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.