ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparing ChatGPT-3.5, Gemini 2.0, and DeepSeek V3 for pediatric pneumonia learning in medical students.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of large language models in pediatric infectious disease education: a multi-condition comparative study.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- AI in respiratory care: findings from the GOLD report.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- How do large language models answer ADHD-related questions? A comparative study of ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- A Comparative Assessment of ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek Accuracy: Examining Visual Medical Assessment in Internal Medicine Cases with and Without Clinical Context.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pediatric pneumonia (PP) remains an important topic in undergraduate medical education and offers a suitable framework for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in AI-assisted learning. We developed a 27 open-ended survey including five core domains of PP, such as diagnosis, etiology, diagnostics, treatment, and prevention. DeepSeek V3, Gemini 2.0, and ChatGPT-3.5, were each provided with identical reference materials. Two pediatric infectious disease specialists independently assessed responses using a structured 10-point rubric through Licert, which presents a custom evaluation tool. DeepSeek V3 achieved the highest mean score (9.9), outperforming ChatGPT-3.5 (7.7), and Gemini 2.0 (7.5) through all domains (p < 0.001). Moreover, it received a full score in 26 out of 27 questions (96.3%) and achieved an accuracy score of ≥ 5. In addition, the highest performance appeared in higher-order reasoning areas, including age-specific etiology and imaging interpretation, with DeepSeek V3 outperforming others by up to 3.2 points. While all models demonstrated almost safety, the variability in content quality however highlights the necessity for careful platform selection. Therefore, future research should explore educational outcomes comparing AI-assisted and conventional learning approaches to better define the role of LLMs in medical education.
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.