Artificial Intelligence Performance Under Different Conditions in Answering China's Standardized Training Examination for Resident Physician in Radiology: A Comparative Analysis
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence Performance Under Different Conditions in Answering China's Standardized Training Examination for Resident Physician in Radiology: A Comparative Analysis","authors":"Zheng Zhu, Yanfeng Zhao, Lin Li, Xiaoyi Wang, Yongming Zhang, Xinming Zhao","doi":"10.1002/hcs2.70085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The capabilities of general-purpose large language models (LLMs) on specialized medical examinations have not been systematically compared. To evaluate the performance differences among three LLMs—DeepSeek-R1, ChatGPT-o1, and Gemini-2.0—in answering questions from China's Standardized Training Examination for Resident Physicians in Radiology, and to assess the impact of different questioning conditions (with/without answer choices, and the introduction of doubt) on model accuracy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 131 questions were analyzed at one time. The LLMs were subjected to two tasks (questions with/without answer choices). Each task included three conditions: no doubt, weak doubt, and strong doubt, with the latter two presented as follow-up questions after the models' initial responses. Subjective evaluation was conducted using the 5-point Likert scale.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>In both tasks, Gemini-2.0 achieved the highest accuracy (0.763–0.809) and (0.595–0.679). In Task 2, all LLMs' accuracy was lower than in Task 1, but only DeepSeek-R1 showed statistical significance (<i>p</i> = 0.014). The introduction of doubt (weak or strong) did not significantly increase accuracy in Task 1 for any model. In Task 2, only DeepSeek-R1 showed a slight increase in accuracy under doubt conditions. All LLMs performed significantly better on single-choice questions than on multiple-choice questions (<i>p</i> < 0.05) and showed superior performance in case-based questions vs. knowledge-based questions. The subjective evaluation scores were 4.46 for DeepSeek-R1, 3.92 for ChatGPT-o1, and 3.83 for Gemini-2.0. It was noted that ChatGPT-o1 negotiated not to answer all questions at once and had missing responses.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>LLMs exhibit variable proficiency in tackling radiology resident examination questions, with Gemini-2.0 showing the highest overall accuracy. However, repeated self-examination of LLMs through the introduction of doubt does not consistently or significantly enhance their performance on radiology-related questions.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100601,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Science","volume":"5 5","pages":"436-447"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13398514/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hcs2.70085","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
The capabilities of general-purpose large language models (LLMs) on specialized medical examinations have not been systematically compared. To evaluate the performance differences among three LLMs—DeepSeek-R1, ChatGPT-o1, and Gemini-2.0—in answering questions from China's Standardized Training Examination for Resident Physicians in Radiology, and to assess the impact of different questioning conditions (with/without answer choices, and the introduction of doubt) on model accuracy.
Methods
A total of 131 questions were analyzed at one time. The LLMs were subjected to two tasks (questions with/without answer choices). Each task included three conditions: no doubt, weak doubt, and strong doubt, with the latter two presented as follow-up questions after the models' initial responses. Subjective evaluation was conducted using the 5-point Likert scale.
Results
In both tasks, Gemini-2.0 achieved the highest accuracy (0.763–0.809) and (0.595–0.679). In Task 2, all LLMs' accuracy was lower than in Task 1, but only DeepSeek-R1 showed statistical significance (p = 0.014). The introduction of doubt (weak or strong) did not significantly increase accuracy in Task 1 for any model. In Task 2, only DeepSeek-R1 showed a slight increase in accuracy under doubt conditions. All LLMs performed significantly better on single-choice questions than on multiple-choice questions (p < 0.05) and showed superior performance in case-based questions vs. knowledge-based questions. The subjective evaluation scores were 4.46 for DeepSeek-R1, 3.92 for ChatGPT-o1, and 3.83 for Gemini-2.0. It was noted that ChatGPT-o1 negotiated not to answer all questions at once and had missing responses.
Conclusions
LLMs exhibit variable proficiency in tackling radiology resident examination questions, with Gemini-2.0 showing the highest overall accuracy. However, repeated self-examination of LLMs through the introduction of doubt does not consistently or significantly enhance their performance on radiology-related questions.