ArticleDigital health
Comparative informative capacity of artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots in colorectal cancer: ChatGPT-4 versus DeepSeek.
Article in Digital health. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots, such as ChatGPT-4 and DeepSeek, are increasingly utilized in providing medical information. However, their accuracy, comprehensiveness, and reliability, particularly in specialized fields such as colorectal cancer, remain under-evaluated. This study aimed to compare the performance of ChatGPT-4 and DeepSeek in responding to both community- and expert-oriented questions related to colorectal cancer. Materials and methods: A total of 30 questions were formulated based on clinical experience, including 15 community-focused and 15 expert-oriented questions. On February 13, 2025, ChatGPT-4 (OpenAI, version 4.0) and DeepSeek-R1 (initial January 2025 release) were queried simultaneously in a single session. Responses were independently evaluated by four colorectal surgery experts for appropriateness (0-100), comprehensiveness (0-100), and reference provision (yes/no). Statistical analyses included Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests, with significance set at Results: ChatGPT-4 and DeepSeek demonstrated comparable appropriateness scores (94.0 vs. 92.25, Discussion: Both chatbots exhibited distinct strengths and limitations. ChatGPT-4 demonstrated superior comprehensiveness in community-oriented responses, whereas DeepSeek provided slightly more consistent evaluations. The absence of scientific references represents a major limitation, restricting clinical applicability and reliability. Enhancing reference support and response consistency is essential before AI-powered chatbots can be safely integrated into colorectal cancer-related clinical decision-making.
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.