Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42168963›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026

DeepSeek vs ChatGPT vs Claude: benchmarking large language models for clinical diagnosis using a novel ICD-10-CM-based evaluation framework.

Lichen Du, Jiachen Zhong, Shirong Zheng, Liuyi Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lichen DuDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA.
Jiachen ZhongDepartment of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA. mrjiachenzhong@gmail.com.
Shirong ZhengPurdue University, 610 Purdue Mall, West Lafayette, IN, 47906, USA.
Liuyi ChenNortheastern University, 360 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language models have shown potential for supporting clinical reasoning, but their performance in open-ended diagnostic tasks remains insufficiently evaluated using clinically grounded and reproducible criteria. Many prior studies have relied on multiple-choice medical benchmarks or subjective expert ratings, which may not fully reflect the uncertainty and diagnostic complexity of real-world clinical encounters. This study aimed to benchmark state-of-the-art LLMs for open-ended clinical diagnosis using a hierarchical ICD-10-CM-based evaluation framework.

methodsWe evaluated four LLMs: DeepSeek-V3, GPT-4o, GPT-4o mini, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet, on 50 real-world clinical cases from the publicly available MultiCaRe dataset. To reduce potential training-data leakage, only cases published after August 2024 were included. For each case, models generated three ranked differential diagnoses and corresponding ICD-10-CM codes. Diagnostic performance was assessed using a four-level hierarchical scoring framework based on ICD-10-CM structure, capturing both broad disease-category agreement and finer diagnostic specificity. Two independent runs were conducted per model-case pair to assess consistency. Descriptive statistics, pairwise one-tailed paired [Formula: see text]-tests, and correlation-based analyses were used to compare performance and robustness.

resultsDeepSeek-V3 achieved the highest mean diagnostic score (2.32 ± 1.53), followed by GPT-4o (2.23 ± 1.50), Claude 3.5 Sonnet (2.12 ± 1.53), and GPT-4o mini (2.10 ± 1.49). Binary adjusted diagnostic accuracy was 82% for DeepSeek-V3 and GPT-4o, 80% for GPT-4o mini, and 76% for Claude 3.5 Sonnet. Across all four models, performance was generally stronger for identifying correct disease categories than for making highly specific diagnoses. DeepSeek-V3 also showed the lowest run-to-run mean difference and the highest run-to-run correlation, indicating numerically greater stability. However, overall differences between models were modest.

conclusionsState-of-the-art LLMs demonstrated promising capability in open-ended clinical diagnosis, particularly for identifying clinically relevant disease categories. DeepSeek-V3 showed the strongest overall numerical performance in this benchmark, although differences across models were limited. The proposed ICD-10-CM-based hierarchical framework provides a reproducible and clinically meaningful approach for evaluating LLM diagnostic performance in open-ended settings.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingInternational Classification of DiseasesLarge Language ModelsHumansArtificial intelligenceBenchmark evaluationClinical diagnosisLarge language models

Identifiers

PMID42168963
PMCPMC13371598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.