ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Performance of DeepSeek-R1, ChatGPT (GPT-o3-mini), and Gemini 2.0 Flash on German Medical Multiple-Choice Questions: Comparative Evaluation.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Fine-Tuning, Retrieval-Augmented Generation, and Hybrid Large Language Models for Postoperative Decision Support: Comparative Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Performance of large language models on the Turkish Pharmacy Specialty Examination: a comparative analysis of accuracy, confidence, and readability.Scientific reports · 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
backgroundDespite the transformative potential of artificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbots in medicine, their implementation is hindered by data privacy and security concerns. DeepSeek offers a conceivable solution through its capability for local offline operations. However, as of 2025, it remains unclear whether DeepSeek can achieve an accuracy comparable to that of conventional, cloud-based AI chatbots.
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate whether DeepSeek, an AI-based chatbot capable of offline operation, achieves answer accuracy on medical multiple-choice questions (MCQs) comparable to that of leading chatbots (ie, ChatGPT and Gemini) on German medical MCQs, thereby assessing its potential as a privacy-preserving alternative for clinical use.
methodsA total of 200 interdisciplinary MCQs from the German Progress Test Medicine were administered to ChatGPT (GPT-o3-mini), DeepSeek (DeepSeek-R1), and Gemini (Gemini 2.0 Flash). Accuracy was defined as the proportion of correctly solved questions. Overall differences among the 3 models were tested with the Cochran Q test, while pairwise comparisons were conducted using the McNemar test. Subgroup analyses were performed by medical domain (Fisher exact test) and question length (Wilcoxon rank-sum test). An a priori power analysis indicated a minimum sample size of 195 questions.
resultsAll 3 chatbots surpassed the conventional passing threshold of 60%, with accuracies of 96% (192/200) for DeepSeek, 94% (188/200) for Gemini, and 92.5% (185/200) for ChatGPT. The overall difference among models was not statistically significant (P=.10) nor were pairwise comparisons. However, incorrect responses were significantly associated with longer question length for DeepSeek (P=.049) and ChatGPT (P=.04) but not for Gemini. No significant differences in performance were observed across clinical versus preclinical domains or medical specialties (all P>.05).
conclusionsOverall, DeepSeek demonstrates outstanding performance on German medical MCQs comparable to the widely used chatbots ChatGPT and Gemini. Similar to ChatGPT, DeepSeek's performance declined with increasing question length, highlighting verbosity as a persistent challenge for large language models. While DeepSeek's offline capability and lower operational costs are advantageous, its safe and reliable application in clinical contexts requires further investigation.
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.