ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Performance of DeepSeek in the generation of in-training examination questions in radiology resident education.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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.
- Large Language Models in the Radiology Workflow: Current Applications, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The performance of large language models (LLMs)-DeepSeek in the generation of in-training examination questions in radiology resident education is understudied. In this study, multiple-choice questions (MCQs) were generated by DeepSeek and written by radiology experts according to Chinese educational standards. Fourteen MCQs (A1, A2, A3/A4 types) from each source were randomly intermixed into a 28-item online test, administered to 40 radiology residents (17 second-year, 23 third-year residents). Participants completed the closed-book exam by answering each question, identifying its origin (DeepSeek or expert), and rating it on perceived difficulty, curriculum relevance, overall quality, and clinical realism using standardized scales. There were no significant differences between DeepSeek-generated and expert-written questions in overall correct response rates or source attribution accuracy. Furthermore, item-type stratification revealed that residents had similar correct response rates for DeepSeek-generated and expert-written A1 questions, while lower correct response rates for DeepSeek-generated A3/A4 questions than expert-written ones. Subjective evaluations showed lower ratings of clinical scenario realism for DeepSeek-generated A2 questions compared to expert-written ones, with a more pronounced difference among third-year residents. DeepSeek demonstrates potential in the generation of in-training examination questions in radiology resident education. However, it is less effective than human experts in creating higher-order questions requiring clinical scenarios.
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.