ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
A comparative study on DeepSeek and ChatGPT for bone and soft tissue tumor clinical practice.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) models are increasingly applied in clinical oncology, yet their comparative utility in specialized domains like bone and soft tissue tumors remains understudied. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy and clinical reasoning capabilities of DeepSeek and ChatGPT. Methods: A two-phase evaluation framework was implemented. First, 249 validated clinical questions (191 single-choice, 58 multiple-choice) spanning five domains (diagnosis, imaging, pathology, staging, treatment) were administered, with expert-derived answers serving as ground truth. Second, nine blinded clinicians scored model-generated analyses of a complex sarcoma case across seven clinical dimensions. Statistical analysis employed chi-square tests for accuracy comparisons, Cohen's kappa for inter-rater reliability, and independent t-tests for expert ratings (α = 0.05). Results: DeepSeek outperformed ChatGPT in overall accuracy (74.7% vs 55.4%, p < 0.001), excelling in single-choice questions (86.9% vs 64.9%, p < 0.001) and two key domains: Pathology & Genetics (72.5% vs 40.0%, p = 0.006) and Treatment (71.3% vs 51.2%, p = 0.015). Experts rated DeepSeek higher in imaging interpretation (7.11 vs. 6.00, p = 0.002) and overall case analysis (54.11 vs. 51.56, p = 0.022). Cross-model analysis revealed DeepSeek uniquely answered 60 questions correctly where ChatGPT erred, while both models shared 51 errors. Conclusions: DeepSeek outperforms ChatGPT in diagnostic accuracy and specialized clinical reasoning for bone/soft tissue tumors, particularly in pathology and treatment domains. The significant performance gap (p < 0.001) and 24.1% unique correct responses position DeepSeek as a more reliable diagnostic aid, though shared errors (51 questions) necessitate hybrid AI-clinician workflows.
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.