ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluation of DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT-4o on the Chinese national medical licensing examination: a multi-year comparative study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- Exploring large language models as a prescription decision support tool for rational antibiotic use: A dual-framework analysis using standardized examinations and real-world clinical cases.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Performance of deepseek-R1 and ChatGPT-5.4 thinking in the medical laboratory professional title examination: accuracy, stability, and comparison with interns.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Performance stability despite iteration: evaluating DeepSeek and ChatGPT on Chinese medical licensing examinations.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Generative artificial intelligence in medical education: from knowledge assessment to clinical reasoning and professional competence.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in natural language understanding and reasoning. However, their real-world applicability in high-stakes medical assessments remains underexplored, particularly in non-English contexts. This study aims to evaluate the performance of DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT-4o on the Chinese National Medical Licensing Examination (NMLE), a comprehensive benchmark of medical knowledge and clinical reasoning. We evaluated the performance of ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1 on the Chinese National Medical Licensing Examination (2019-2021) using question-level binary accuracy (correct = 1, incorrect = 0) as the outcome. A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a binomial distribution and logit link was used to examine fixed effects of model type, year, and subject unit, including their interactions, while accounting for random intercepts across questions. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted to assess differences across model-year interactions. DeepSeek-R1 significantly outperformed ChatGPT-4o overall (β = - 1.829, p < 0.001). Temporal analysis revealed a significant decline in ChatGPT-4o's accuracy from 2019 to 2021 (p < 0.05), whereas DeepSeek-R1 appeared to maintain a more stable performance. Subject-wise, Unit 3 showed the highest accuracy (β = 0.344, p = 0.001) compared to Unit 1. A significant interaction in 2020 (β = - 0.567, p = 0.009) indicated an amplified performance gap between the two models. These results highlight the importance of model selection and domain adaptation. Further investigation is needed to account for potential confounding factors, such as variations in question difficulty or language biases over time, which could also influence these trends. This longitudinal evaluation highlights the potential and limitations of LLMs in medical licensing contexts. While current models demonstrate promising results, further fine-tuning is necessary for clinical applicability. The NMLE offers a robust benchmark for future development of trustworthy AI-assisted medical decision support tools in non-English settings.
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.