ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
DeepSeek-R1 vs. OpenAI o1 in colorectal cancer screening: a binational evaluation.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs), such as OpenAI o1 and DeepSeek-R1, demonstrate promising applications in healthcare through structured reasoning and decision support. This study evaluates the responses and chain-of-thought (CoT) outputs of OpenAI o1and DeepSeek-R1 in answering questions about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.
methodsFifteen questions about CRC screening were posed to OpenAI o1 and DeepSeek-R1. Four experts rated the responses for accuracy and comprehensiveness and three further experts evaluated the CoT reasoning output for logical-coherence and error-types and handling, using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines as the primary reference standard.
resultsBoth LLMs demonstrated high accuracy without significant differences (median accuracy scores: OpenAI o1 = 4.5, DeepSeek-R1 = 5; p = 0.5243). However, DeepSeek-R1 significantly outperformed OpenAI o1 in comprehensiveness (p < 0.0001), logical coherence (p = 0.0001), and error types and handling (p = 0.0149). DeepSeek-R1 generated more detailed responses (word count: 110 ± 40 vs. 57 ± 24, p = 0.0001), with longer response times (25 ± 10s vs. 7 ± 4s, p < 0.0001).
conclusionDeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI o1 both offer high accuracy for CRC screening guidance, with DeepSeek-R1 providing more comprehensive responses with logically more coherent, and robust error-handling reasoning process, compared with OpenAI o1. Context-specific evaluation is critical for practical clinical integration.
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.