Comparative evaluation of three large-language models for accuracy and efficiency in inflammatory aneurysm decisions, implying a need for tailored model selection.
Decision support for inflammatory aneurysms demands guideline-concordant specificity. We compared three large-language-model systems-DeepSeek-R1, ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3-on accuracy and time efficiency for core diagnostic, interventional and surveillance decisions. In a prospective, rater-blinded evaluation, each model completed a 50-item instrument aligned to contemporary aortic guidance in five independent clean-context sessions (15 answer sets). Five consultant vascular specialists scored all outputs using a prespecified 0/1/2 rubric. The primary outcome was total accuracy (0-100); secondary outcomes were completion time and domain subscores. Inter-rater reliability was summarised with Fleiss' κ and ICC(2,k). Mean total scores were 89.8 ± 1.8 (DeepSeek-R1), 88.4 ± 1.8 (ChatGPT-4o) and 77.8 ± 1.5 (DeepSeek-V3). One-way ANOVA showed a significant model effect (F(2,12) = 75.34, p = 1.61 × 10⁻⁷); Tukey contrasts indicated near-parity between R1 and 4o (Δ 1.44, p = 0.397) with both exceeding V3 (R1-V3 Δ 12.00, p = 2.80 × 10⁻⁷; 4o-V3 Δ 10.56, p = 1.13 × 10⁻⁶). Completion time separated strongly (R1 58.5 ± 0.95 s; 4o 33.4 ± 0.46 s; V3 19.8 ± 0.89 s; F(2,12) = 3053, p = 5.69 × 10⁻¹⁷), and accuracy rose with time (Pearson r = 0.802, 95% CI 0.49-0.93, p = 3.24 × 10⁻⁴; Theil-Sen 0.285 points·s⁻¹). Differences concentrated in guideline-derived items (R1 36.44 ± 1.49; 4o 36.32 ± 1.45; V3 29.16 ± 0.86). Inter-rater agreement was substantial at item level (κ = 0.662) and excellent for totals (ICC[2,k] = 0.973); intra-model variability was ≈ 2%. In rule-dense, safety-critical decisions for inflammatory aneurysms, slower, reasoning-oriented decoding yields the highest accuracy, while a low-latency multimodal system achieves near-parity at markedly shorter times; a throughput-optimised model trades speed for omission-prone answers. Model selection should align with task criticality, with human verification retained.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: