DeepSeek-R1 Outperforms Gemini 2.0 Pro, OpenAI o1, and o3-mini in Bilingual Complex Ophthalmology Reasoning
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866916629029322752 |
|---|---|
| author | Xu, Pusheng Wu, Yue Jin, Kai Chen, Xiaolan He, Mingguang Shi, Danli |
| author_facet | Xu, Pusheng Wu, Yue Jin, Kai Chen, Xiaolan He, Mingguang Shi, Danli |
| contents | Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and reasoning ability of DeepSeek-R1 and three other recently released large language models (LLMs) in bilingual complex ophthalmology cases. Methods: A total of 130 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) related to diagnosis (n = 39) and management (n = 91) were collected from the Chinese ophthalmology senior professional title examination and categorized into six topics. These MCQs were translated into English using DeepSeek-R1. The responses of DeepSeek-R1, Gemini 2.0 Pro, OpenAI o1 and o3-mini were generated under default configurations between February 15 and February 20, 2025. Accuracy was calculated as the proportion of correctly answered questions, with omissions and extra answers considered incorrect. Reasoning ability was evaluated through analyzing reasoning logic and the causes of reasoning error. Results: DeepSeek-R1 demonstrated the highest overall accuracy, achieving 0.862 in Chinese MCQs and 0.808 in English MCQs. Gemini 2.0 Pro, OpenAI o1, and OpenAI o3-mini attained accuracies of 0.715, 0.685, and 0.692 in Chinese MCQs (all P<0.001 compared with DeepSeek-R1), and 0.746 (P=0.115), 0.723 (P=0.027), and 0.577 (P<0.001) in English MCQs, respectively. DeepSeek-R1 achieved the highest accuracy across five topics in both Chinese and English MCQs. It also excelled in management questions conducted in Chinese (all P<0.05). Reasoning ability analysis showed that the four LLMs shared similar reasoning logic. Ignoring key positive history, ignoring key positive signs, misinterpretation medical data, and too aggressive were the most common causes of reasoning errors. Conclusion: DeepSeek-R1 demonstrated superior performance in bilingual complex ophthalmology reasoning tasks than three other state-of-the-art LLMs. While its clinical applicability remains challenging, it shows promise for supporting diagnosis and clinical decision-making. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2502_17947 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | DeepSeek-R1 Outperforms Gemini 2.0 Pro, OpenAI o1, and o3-mini in Bilingual Complex Ophthalmology Reasoning Xu, Pusheng Wu, Yue Jin, Kai Chen, Xiaolan He, Mingguang Shi, Danli Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence Performance Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and reasoning ability of DeepSeek-R1 and three other recently released large language models (LLMs) in bilingual complex ophthalmology cases. Methods: A total of 130 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) related to diagnosis (n = 39) and management (n = 91) were collected from the Chinese ophthalmology senior professional title examination and categorized into six topics. These MCQs were translated into English using DeepSeek-R1. The responses of DeepSeek-R1, Gemini 2.0 Pro, OpenAI o1 and o3-mini were generated under default configurations between February 15 and February 20, 2025. Accuracy was calculated as the proportion of correctly answered questions, with omissions and extra answers considered incorrect. Reasoning ability was evaluated through analyzing reasoning logic and the causes of reasoning error. Results: DeepSeek-R1 demonstrated the highest overall accuracy, achieving 0.862 in Chinese MCQs and 0.808 in English MCQs. Gemini 2.0 Pro, OpenAI o1, and OpenAI o3-mini attained accuracies of 0.715, 0.685, and 0.692 in Chinese MCQs (all P<0.001 compared with DeepSeek-R1), and 0.746 (P=0.115), 0.723 (P=0.027), and 0.577 (P<0.001) in English MCQs, respectively. DeepSeek-R1 achieved the highest accuracy across five topics in both Chinese and English MCQs. It also excelled in management questions conducted in Chinese (all P<0.05). Reasoning ability analysis showed that the four LLMs shared similar reasoning logic. Ignoring key positive history, ignoring key positive signs, misinterpretation medical data, and too aggressive were the most common causes of reasoning errors. Conclusion: DeepSeek-R1 demonstrated superior performance in bilingual complex ophthalmology reasoning tasks than three other state-of-the-art LLMs. While its clinical applicability remains challenging, it shows promise for supporting diagnosis and clinical decision-making. |
| title | DeepSeek-R1 Outperforms Gemini 2.0 Pro, OpenAI o1, and o3-mini in Bilingual Complex Ophthalmology Reasoning |
| topic | Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence Performance |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17947 |