ArticleScientific reports2026
A systematic comparison of ChatGPT and DeepSeek for guideline-based question answering in obstetric anesthesia.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
LLMs are increasingly applied in clinical medicine, but their performance in protocol-driven fields like anesthesiology remains underexplored. Obstetric anesthesia demands timely and accurate decision-making, where adherence to established guidelines is essential. This study investigates how prompting strategies and model architectures influence LLM performance in a high-stakes clinical domain. To evaluate the performance of four Large Language Models (LLMs)—ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-4o-mini, DeepSeek-V3, and DeepSeek-R1—in answering guideline-based questions in obstetric anesthesia using three distinct prompting strategies. Eleven clinical questions derived from the 2019 ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 209 were posed to each model using three prompting strategies: Isolated Prompting (IP), Batch Prompting (BP), and Contextual Isolated Prompting (CIP). Responses were rated across four clinical dimensions (Accuracy, Overconclusiveness, Supplementary Value, and Completeness) using a 5-point Likert scale, and assessed for readability using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Statistical analyses included ANOVA and post hoc comparisons. No significant differences were found across models for Accuracy, Overconclusiveness, or Completeness (p > 0.05). However, Supplementary Value differed significantly (p = 0.008), with ChatGPT-4o under CIP outperforming DeepSeek-V3 under IP (p = 0.021). ChatGPT-4o demonstrated the highest overall readability (lowest FKGL), while ChatGPT-4o-mini’s readability improved significantly under CIP. DeepSeek-V3 under BP outperformed R1 under IP in FKGL scores (p = 0.0294). LLMs demonstrate comparable core clinical accuracy in obstetric anesthesia tasks, with ChatGPT-4o offering the most readable and context-rich responses. Prompting strategy, especially CIP, enhances response quality. These findings support the potential of LLMs as clinical aids, contingent on thoughtful prompt design and domain validation.
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.