Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluation compares DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI o1 for colorectal cancer screening, indicating significant differences in response comprehensiveness and coherence.
Large language models (LLMs), such as OpenAI o1 and DeepSeek-R1, demonstrate promising applications in healthcare through structured reasoning and decision support. This study evaluates the responses and chain-of-thought (CoT) outputs of OpenAI o1and DeepSeek-R1 in answering questions about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Fifteen questions about CRC screening were posed to OpenAI o1 and DeepSeek-R1. Four experts rated the responses for accuracy and comprehensiveness and three further experts evaluated the CoT reasoning output for logical-coherence and error-types and handling, using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines as the primary reference standard. Both LLMs demonstrated high accuracy without significant differences (median accuracy scores: OpenAI o1 = 4.5, DeepSeek-R1 = 5; p = 0.5243). However, DeepSeek-R1 significantly outperformed OpenAI o1 in comprehensiveness (p < 0.0001), logical coherence (p = 0.0001), and error types and handling (p = 0.0149). DeepSeek-R1 generated more detailed responses (word count: 110 ± 40 vs. 57 ± 24, p = 0.0001), with longer response times (25 ± 10s vs. 7 ± 4s, p < 0.0001). DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI o1 both offer high accuracy for CRC screening guidance, with DeepSeek-R1 providing more comprehensive responses with logically more coherent, and robust error-handling reasoning process, compared with OpenAI o1. Context-specific evaluation is critical for practical clinical integration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: