ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Comparative assessment of DeepSeek-R1 and GPT-4 for structured ultrasound reporting of adnexal masses.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study primarily evaluated the ability of two large language models (DeepSeek-R1 and GPT-4) to generate structured ultrasound reports from free-text adnexal mass reports. Secondarily, we assessed their accuracy in O-RADS classification and management recommendations, with an exploratory analysis of their performance in benign versus malignant discrimination. Methods: This study included 215 free-text ultrasound reports of adnexal masses (AMs) between July 2024 and March 2025. Each report was processed three times per model; majority voting was used to determine the final output. Three senior radiologists, blinded to model identity, evaluated structured reports against a predefined template, O-RADS categories, and management guidelines. Histopathology served as the reference standard for benign/malignant discrimination; while expert consensus served as the reference for the other endpoints. Results: GPT-4 showed numerically better performance than DeepSeek-R1 in generating structured reports (99.5% vs. 96.7%, p = 0.07).DeepSeek-R1 outperformed GPT-4 in O-RADS accuracy (64.4% vs. 52.9%, p < 0.001) and appropriate management recommendations (66.4% vs. 58.0%, p = 0.007). Both models demonstrated good discrimination ability for benign versus malignant classification (AUC > 0.80 for both). Conclusion: Both DeepSeek-R1 and GPT-4 demonstrate potential for automating structured ultrasound reporting of AMs, with DeepSeek-R1 showing superior performance in classification and recommendations. However, their diagnostic performance in discriminating benign from malignant masses, while promising, requires further refinement before independent clinical application. These findings support their role as assistive tools, pending integration with image data and prospective 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.