CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 233Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 2 are not checked yet.

Benchmark evaluation of DeepSeek large language models in clinical decision-making

Open access
Sandmann, Sarah, Hegselmann, Stefan, Fujarski, Michael, Bickmann, Lucas, Wild, Benjamin, Eils, Roland, Varghese, Julian·2025·Nature Medicine
DOI 10.1038/s41591-025-03727-2PMC PMC12353792
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly transforming medical applications. However, proprietary models such as GPT-4o face significant barriers to clinical adoption because they cannot be deployed on site within healthcare institutions, making them noncompliant with stringent privacy regulations. Recent advancements in open-source LLMs such as DeepSeek models offer a promising alternative because they allow efficient fine-tuning on local data in hospitals with advanced information technology infrastructure. Here, to demonstrate the clinical utility of DeepSeek-V3 and DeepSeek-R1, we benchmarked their performance on clinical decision support tasks against proprietary LLMs, including GPT-4o and Gemini-2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental. Using 125 patient cases with sufficient statistical power, covering a broad range of frequent and rare diseases, we found that DeepSeek models perform equally well and in some cases better than proprietary LLMs. Our study demonstrates that open-source LLMs can provide a scalable pathway for secure model training enabling real-world medical applications in accordance with data privacy and healthcare regulations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41591-025-03727-2

Cites

21 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Model performance for diagnosis tasks. a–d, Bubble plots showing the results of the 125 pairwise comparisons on a 5-point Likert scale for GPT-4o versus DeepSeek-R1 (a) (one-sided paired Mann–Whitney test with continuity correction, alternative = greater, Bonferroni correction with k = 4, adjusted P = 0.3085, V = 378, 95% CI −3.13 × 10−7 to infinity, estimate 0.25); GPT-4o versus Gem2FTE (one-sided paired Mann–Whitney test with continuity correction, alternative = greater, Bonferroni correction with k = 4, adjusted P = 7.89 × 10−6, V = 1,576, 95% CI 0.5 to infinity, estimate 0.75) (b); DeepSeek-R1 versus Gem2FTE (one-sided paired Mann–Whitney test with continuity correction, alternative = greater, Bonferroni correction with k = 4, adjusted P = 5.73 × 10−5, V = 1,515, 95% CI 0.5 to infinity, estimate 0.5) (c); and DeepSeek-R1 versus DeepSeek-V3 (one-sided paired Mann–Whitney test with continuity correction, alternative = greater, Bonferroni correction with k = 4, adjusted P = 1, V = 307, 95% CI −0.25 to infinity, estimate 1.97 × 10−5) (d). e, Violin plots comparing the Likert scores of GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, DeepSeek-V3 and Gem2FTE with those of GPT-4, GPT-3.5 and Google in our previous study (n.s., not significant; ***P < 0.001; significance levels visualizing the results of statistical tests performed in a–d). Explorative comparison of the n = 110 cases analyzed by all seven models with the n = 15 newly added cases shows that the performance scores align well (one-sided unpaired Mann–Whitney test, alternative = greater; GPT-4o: pGPT-4o 0.5441, W = 813.5, 95% CI −1.84 × 10−5 to infinity, estimate −4.99 × 10−5; DeepSeek-R1: pDeepSeek-R1 0.7710, W = 740, 95% CI 3.75 × 10−5 to infinity, estimate −2.16 × 10−5; DeepSeek-V3: pDeepSeek-V3 0.6678, W = 775.5, 95% CI −7.45 × 10−5 to infinity, estimate 5.91 × 10−5; Gem2FTE: pGem2FTE 0.9899, W = 540, 95% CI −0.5 to infinity, estimate −3.51 × 10−5). f, The cumulative frequency of the Likert scores for GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, DeepSeek-V3, Gem2FTE and GPT-4.
Fig. 1 Model performance for diagnosis tasks. a–d, Bubble plots showing the results of the 125 pairwise comparisons on a 5-point Likert scale for GPT-4o versus DeepSeek-R1 (a) (one-sided paired Mann–Whitney test with continuity correction, alternative = greater, Bonferroni correction with k = 4, adjusted P = 0.3085, V = 378, 95% CI −3.13 × 10−7 to infinity, estimate 0.25); GPT-4o versus Gem2FTE (one-sided paired Mann–Whitney test with continuity correction, alternative = greater, Bonferroni correction with k = 4, adjusted P = 7.89 × 10−6, V = 1,576, 95% CI 0.5 to infinity, estimate 0.75) (b); DeepSeek-R1 versus Gem2FTE (one-sided paired Mann–Whitney test with continuity correction, alternative = greater, Bonferroni correction with k = 4, adjusted P = 5.73 × 10−5, V = 1,515, 95% CI 0.5 to infinity, estimate 0.5) (c); and DeepSeek-R1 versus DeepSeek-V3 (one-sided paired Mann–Whitney test with continuity correction, alternative = greater, Bonferroni correction with k = 4, adjusted P = 1, V = 307, 95% CI −0.25 to infinity, estimate 1.97 × 10−5) (d). e, Violin plots comparing the Likert scores of GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, DeepSeek-V3 and Gem2FTE with those of GPT-4, GPT-3.5 and Google in our previous study (n.s., not significant; ***P < 0.001; significance levels visualizing the results of statistical tests performed in a–d). Explorative comparison of the n = 110 cases analyzed by all seven models with the n = 15 newly added cases shows that the performance scores align well (one-sided unpaired Mann–Whitney test, alternative = greater; GPT-4o: pGPT-4o 0.5441, W = 813.5, 95% CI −1.84 × 10−5 to infinity, estimate −4.99 × 10−5; DeepSeek-R1: pDeepSeek-R1 0.7710, W = 740, 95% CI 3.75 × 10−5 to infinity, estimate −2.16 × 10−5; DeepSeek-V3: pDeepSeek-V3 0.6678, W = 775.5, 95% CI −7.45 × 10−5 to infinity, estimate 5.91 × 10−5; Gem2FTE: pGem2FTE 0.9899, W = 540, 95% CI −0.5 to infinity, estimate −3.51 × 10−5). f, The cumulative frequency of the Likert scores for GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, DeepSeek-V3, Gem2FTE and GPT-4.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Model performance for treatment recommendation tasks. a–c, Bubble plots showing the results of the 125 pairwise comparisons on a 5-point Likert scale for GPT-4o versus DeepSeek-R1 (one-sided paired Mann–Whitney test with continuity correction, alternative = greater, Bonferroni correction with k = 3, adjusted P = 0.1522, V = 771.5, 95% CI −6.88 × 10−5 to infinity, estimate 0.25) (a); GPT-4o versus Gem2FTE (one-sided paired Mann–Whitney test with continuity correction, alternative = greater, Bonferroni correction with k = 3, adjusted P = 0.0016, V = 1154, 95% CI 0.2501 to infinity, estimate 0.5) (b); DeepSeek-R1 versus Gem2FTE (one-sided paired Mann–Whitney test with continuity correction, alternative = greater, Bonferroni correction with k = 3, adjusted P = 0.0235, V = 1,124, 95% CI 4.21 × 10−6 to infinity, estimate 0.5) (c). d, Violin plots comparing the Likert scores of GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1 and Gem2FTE with GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 (n.s., not significant; *P < 0.05; significance levels visualizing the results of statistical tests performed in a–c). Explorative comparison of the n = 110 cases analyzed by all seven models with the n = 15 newly added cases shows that the performance scores align well (one-sided unpaired Mann–Whitney test, alternative = greater; GPT-4o: pGPT-4o 0.1460, W = 955, 95% CI −5.38 × 10−5 to infinity, estimate 3.16 × 10−5; DeepSeek-R1: pDeepSeek-R1 0.5256, W = 817.5, 95% CI −1.46 × 10−5 to infinity, estimate −1.73 × 10−5; Gem2FTE: pGem2FTE 0.4591, W = 838.5, 95% CI −9.54 × 10−6 to infinity, estimate −6.10 × 10−5). e, The cumulative frequency of Likert scores for GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, Gem2FTE and GPT-4.
Fig. 2 Model performance for treatment recommendation tasks. a–c, Bubble plots showing the results of the 125 pairwise comparisons on a 5-point Likert scale for GPT-4o versus DeepSeek-R1 (one-sided paired Mann–Whitney test with continuity correction, alternative = greater, Bonferroni correction with k = 3, adjusted P = 0.1522, V = 771.5, 95% CI −6.88 × 10−5 to infinity, estimate 0.25) (a); GPT-4o versus Gem2FTE (one-sided paired Mann–Whitney test with continuity correction, alternative = greater, Bonferroni correction with k = 3, adjusted P = 0.0016, V = 1154, 95% CI 0.2501 to infinity, estimate 0.5) (b); DeepSeek-R1 versus Gem2FTE (one-sided paired Mann–Whitney test with continuity correction, alternative = greater, Bonferroni correction with k = 3, adjusted P = 0.0235, V = 1,124, 95% CI 4.21 × 10−6 to infinity, estimate 0.5) (c). d, Violin plots comparing the Likert scores of GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1 and Gem2FTE with GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 (n.s., not significant; *P < 0.05; significance levels visualizing the results of statistical tests performed in a–c). Explorative comparison of the n = 110 cases analyzed by all seven models with the n = 15 newly added cases shows that the performance scores align well (one-sided unpaired Mann–Whitney test, alternative = greater; GPT-4o: pGPT-4o 0.1460, W = 955, 95% CI −5.38 × 10−5 to infinity, estimate 3.16 × 10−5; DeepSeek-R1: pDeepSeek-R1 0.5256, W = 817.5, 95% CI −1.46 × 10−5 to infinity, estimate −1.73 × 10−5; Gem2FTE: pGem2FTE 0.4591, W = 838.5, 95% CI −9.54 × 10−6 to infinity, estimate −6.10 × 10−5). e, The cumulative frequency of Likert scores for GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, Gem2FTE and GPT-4.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Extended Data Fig. 1 Visual abstract.
Extended Data Fig. 1 Visual abstract.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Extended Data Fig. 2 Summarized model performances for diagnosis and treatment recommendation tasks. Histograms showing the performance of GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, Gemini-2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental (Gem2FTE) and DeepSeek-V3 considering diagnosis and treatment, rated with Likert scores. Five points represent the highest possible level of accuracy as assessed by the expert. The red line indicates the mean performance of each model.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Summarized model performances for diagnosis and treatment recommendation tasks. Histograms showing the performance of GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, Gemini-2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental (Gem2FTE) and DeepSeek-V3 considering diagnosis and treatment, rated with Likert scores. Five points represent the highest possible level of accuracy as assessed by the expert. The red line indicates the mean performance of each model.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bonferroni, C. E. Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilita. Pubblicazioni del R. Istituto Super. di Sci. Economiche e Commericiali di Firenze 8, 3–62 (1936).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 233

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Sandmann, S., Hegselmann, S., Fujarski, M., Bickmann, L., Wild, B., Eils, R., & Varghese, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Münster (DE)
  • Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University (CN)
  • Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Eils, Roland
ORCID
Venue
Nature Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-04-23
Volume
31
Issue
8
Pages
2546-2549
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
DOI
10.1038/s41591-025-03727-2
PMC
PMC12353792
OpenAlex
W4409695426
Cited by
233
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 171 · 2025: 62
FWCI
55.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 1470)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (W2441025)
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01KX2121)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
DeepSeek, open-source large language models, clinical decision support, benchmarking, GPT-4o, Gemini, DeepSeek-V3, DeepSeek-R1, data privacy, rare diseases, clinical adoption
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Large Language Models, Humans, Benchmarking, Decision Support Systems, Clinical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review