ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Benchmark evaluation of deepseek AI models in antibacterial clinical decision-making for infectious diseases.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
backgroundAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a global threat to public health, though AI models have shown transformative potential in combating AMR. China's DeepSeek, a novel open-source, low-cost, and locally deployable AI model, is increasingly integrated into clinical workflows for infectious diseases, yet the pharmacological validity and real-world impact of its recommended drugs remain poorly understood.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the antibacterial regimens among DeepSeek(V3,R1,R1 + WS), ChatGPT o1, and infectious disease (ID) specialists, while evaluating the performance, timeliness of the two AI models.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 101 cases with effective antibacterial therapy. DeepSeek and ChatGPT o1 were identically prompted using comprehensive case data to generate antibacterial regimens. Then, Five independent clinical pharmacists evaluated all outputs. The benchmark evaluation metrics included the concordance rate between two AI models and the patient's effective antibacterial regimens, as well as the proportion of regimens escalating therapy to higher-tier groups per WHO's AWaRe classification. Furthermore, performance metrics encompassed overlap rate, precision, recall, F1-score, ID specialists endorsement rate, search latency, and search success rate of DeepSeek and ChatGPT o1. Statistical analyses employed Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests.
resultsDeepSeek-V3 demonstrated the highest overall concordance rate with ID specialists, exceeding those of DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT o1. The proportion of antibacterial regimens escalated to higher-tier groups was significantly greater in DeepSeek-R1, DeepSeek-R1 + WS and ChatGPT o1 compared to that of ID specialists(P < 0.005). Regarding the performance metrics, ChatGPT o1 achieved the highest level of overlap rate, while DeepSeek-R1 led in recall. Furthermore, DeepSeek-V3 achieved the optimal F1-score and the highest overall ID specialists' endorsed rate, reflecting optimal balance. Likewise, Search latency varied substantially (H = 305.53, P < 0.005), with DeepSeek-V3 and ChatGPT o1 exhibiting the fastest response times.
conclusionsWhile moderate agreement exists between DeepSeek and ID specialists in antibiotic selection, DeepSeek models exhibit a marked tendency toward recommending higher-tier, broader-spectrum antibacterials. Moreover, DeepSeek's antibacterial clinical decision-making is comparable to that of ChatGPT o1, with DeepSeek-V3 surpassing it in certain performance metrics. These findings highlight the need for AI refinement to align with stewardship principles and contextual clinical judgment.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry(ChiCTR2500100661), Registration date: April 14,2025, https://www.chictr.org.cn .
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.