Artificial Intelligence Performance Under Different Conditions in Answering China's Standardized Training Examination for Resident Physician in Radiology: A Comparative Analysis

IF 6
Health Care Science Pub Date : 2026-10-05 Epub Date: 2026-06-29 DOI:10.1002/hcs2.70085
Zheng Zhu, Yanfeng Zhao, Lin Li, Xiaoyi Wang, Yongming Zhang, Xinming Zhao
{"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,&nbsp;Yanfeng Zhao,&nbsp;Lin Li,&nbsp;Xiaoyi Wang,&nbsp;Yongming Zhang,&nbsp;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> &lt; 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.

Abstract Image

不同条件下人工智能在中国放射科住院医师标准化培训考试中的表现:比较分析。
背景:通用大型语言模型(llm)在专业医学检查方面的能力尚未得到系统的比较。评估三种llms (deepseek - r1、chatgpt - 01和gemini -2.0)在回答中国放射学住院医师标准化培训考试问题中的表现差异,并评估不同提问条件(带/不带答案选择和引入疑问)对模型准确性的影响。方法:一次性对131个问题进行分析。法学硕士们接受了两项任务(有/没有答案选项的问题)。每个任务包括三个条件:不怀疑、弱怀疑和强怀疑,后两个作为模型初始反应后的后续问题。主观评价采用5分李克特量表。结果:在两项任务中,Gemini-2.0获得最高的准确度(0.763-0.809)和(0.595-0.679)。在Task 2中,所有LLMs的准确率都低于Task 1,但只有DeepSeek-R1有统计学意义(p = 0.014)。在Task 1中,引入怀疑(弱或强)并没有显著提高任何模型的准确性。在Task 2中,只有DeepSeek-R1在怀疑条件下的准确性略有提高。所有llm在单项选择题上的表现明显优于多项选择题(p结论:llm在解决放射学住院医师考试问题上表现出不同的熟练程度,Gemini-2.0显示出最高的总体准确性。然而,通过引入怀疑对法学硕士进行反复的自我检查并不能持续或显著地提高他们在放射学相关问题上的表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书