Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42423944›Full record

ArticleUpdates in surgery2026

Performance of next-generation AI chatbots in colorectal cancer knowledge assessment: a comparative pilot study of ChatGPT-5.1, Gemini-3Pro Preview, DeepSeek-V3.2, Kimi K2 Thinking, Qwen3-Max and Claude Opus 4.5.

Hao Chen, Xiang Tan, Dan Wu, Le Kang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Updates in surgery, 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.

Hao Chen *Anyue County People's Hospital, Ziyang, China. Chenhao12368@outlook.com.
Xiang Tan *Anyue County People's Hospital, Ziyang, China.
Dan Wu *Anyue County People's Hospital, Ziyang, China.
Le Kang *Anyue County People's Hospital, Ziyang, China.

Funding

the Medical scientific research project in Ziyang City 2025135
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As AI models evolve, their application in specialized fields like colorectal cancer requires rigorous validation. This pilot study aimed to comparatively assess the knowledge retention, safety, and reasoning limitations of six advanced AI chatbots using a constrained zero-shot multiple-choice question format. 137 text-based MCQs covering 12 core colorectal cancer modules were adapted from the 2023 Chinese guidelines and administered to Gemini 3 Pro Preview, GPT-5.1, Kimi K2 Thinking, DeepSeek V3.2, Qwen3-Max, and Claude Opus 4.5 under zero-shot conditions with a prompt prohibiting reasoning steps. Both quantitative statistical analysis and qualitative error analysis were performed. Overall accuracy was low: Kimi K2 Thinking 27.74%, SD = 0.45, Claude Opus 4.5 26.28%, SD = 0.44, Gemini 3 Pro 16.06%, SD = 0.37, DeepSeek V3.2 15.33%, SD = 0.36, GPT-5.1 14.60%, SD = 0.35, and Qwen3-Max 13.87%, SD = 0.34. Significant module-wise disparities emerged, with Kimi K2 scoring 37.04% in Endoscopic Imaging versus Qwen3-Max at 7.41%. Qualitative analysis revealed four failure patterns: semantic association bias, hierarchical logic failure, fact retrieval error, and hallucinations. No correlation existed between item difficulty and accuracy. Under constrained prompts, next-generation AI chatbots demonstrate unsatisfactory colorectal cancer performance, often relying on keyword matching rather than physiological simulation. This leads to dangerous clinical errors, highlighting the critical need for chain-of-thought prompting, expert oversight, and domain-specific fine-tuning before unsupervised use.

Indexed as

Clinical reasoningColorectal cancerHallucinationLarge language modelsMedical educationPilot study

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.