ChatGPT Versus DeepSeek in Resectability Categorization of Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Comparison Based on EPOS 2020.

IF 1.5 Q2 Medicine
Jia-Hong Lao, Shu-Yi Huang, Fei-Tong Jian, Rong-Rong Ge, Yu Jiang, Xue-Kun Huang, Zhao-Hui Shi, Qin-Tai Yang, Shuo Wu
{"title":"ChatGPT Versus DeepSeek in Resectability Categorization of Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Comparison Based on EPOS 2020.","authors":"Jia-Hong Lao, Shu-Yi Huang, Fei-Tong Jian, Rong-Rong Ge, Yu Jiang, Xue-Kun Huang, Zhao-Hui Shi, Qin-Tai Yang, Shuo Wu","doi":"10.1002/wjo2.70180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate and compare the performance of ChatGPT-5.5 (2026) and DeepSeek-V3 (2026) in classifying CRS resectability according to the EPOS 2020 guidelines, employing various prompting strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective study, 150 chronic rhinosinusitis cases were reviewed, and three rhinology experts classified resectability according to the EPOS 2020 criteria. GPT-5.5 and DeepSeek-V3 were evaluated using default-knowledge, in-context, and chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting based on accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and F1 score. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted according to nasal polyp status and surgical eligibility to assess the consistency of prompting-strategy effects. ENT resident performance was compared with and without AI assistance. Statistical analyses included chi-square or Fisher's exact, Student's <i>t</i> or Mann-Whitney <i>U</i>, and ANOVA tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>DeepSeek-V3 achieved higher accuracy than GPT-5.5 under default-knowledge (81.3% vs. 72.7%, <i>p</i> < 0.05) and in-context prompting (86.7% vs. 78.0%, <i>p</i> < 0.01). Notably, CoT prompting significantly improved both models, yielding comparable peak accuracies (95.3% vs. 96.0%, <i>p</i> = 1.00). Subgroup analyses revealed consistent effects across GPT-5.5 subgroups, whereas DeepSeek-V3 exhibited heterogeneous response patterns. Furthermore, CoT-assisted ENT residents demonstrated significantly greater accuracy than unassisted peers (GPT-5.5: 97.3% vs. 72.8%, <i>p</i> < 0.001; DeepSeek-V3: 98.0% vs. 72.8%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), alongside a 43.0% reduction in completion time (95% CI: 41.5%-44.4%; <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ChatGPT-5.5 and DeepSeek-V3, when using the CoT prompting strategy, achieved similarly high accuracy in resectability categorization. While AI-generated reports improved surgeons' accuracy and efficiency, these models should be further validated as support tools before widespread clinical implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":32097,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of OtorhinolaryngologyHead and Neck Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13647241/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of OtorhinolaryngologyHead and Neck Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjo2.70180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate and compare the performance of ChatGPT-5.5 (2026) and DeepSeek-V3 (2026) in classifying CRS resectability according to the EPOS 2020 guidelines, employing various prompting strategies.

Methods: In this retrospective study, 150 chronic rhinosinusitis cases were reviewed, and three rhinology experts classified resectability according to the EPOS 2020 criteria. GPT-5.5 and DeepSeek-V3 were evaluated using default-knowledge, in-context, and chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting based on accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and F1 score. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted according to nasal polyp status and surgical eligibility to assess the consistency of prompting-strategy effects. ENT resident performance was compared with and without AI assistance. Statistical analyses included chi-square or Fisher's exact, Student's t or Mann-Whitney U, and ANOVA tests.

Results: DeepSeek-V3 achieved higher accuracy than GPT-5.5 under default-knowledge (81.3% vs. 72.7%, p < 0.05) and in-context prompting (86.7% vs. 78.0%, p < 0.01). Notably, CoT prompting significantly improved both models, yielding comparable peak accuracies (95.3% vs. 96.0%, p = 1.00). Subgroup analyses revealed consistent effects across GPT-5.5 subgroups, whereas DeepSeek-V3 exhibited heterogeneous response patterns. Furthermore, CoT-assisted ENT residents demonstrated significantly greater accuracy than unassisted peers (GPT-5.5: 97.3% vs. 72.8%, p < 0.001; DeepSeek-V3: 98.0% vs. 72.8%, p < 0.001), alongside a 43.0% reduction in completion time (95% CI: 41.5%-44.4%; p < 0.001).

Conclusions: ChatGPT-5.5 and DeepSeek-V3, when using the CoT prompting strategy, achieved similarly high accuracy in resectability categorization. While AI-generated reports improved surgeons' accuracy and efficiency, these models should be further validated as support tools before widespread clinical implementation.

ChatGPT与DeepSeek在慢性鼻窦炎可切除性分类中的比较:基于epos2020的比较
目的:评估和比较ChatGPT-5.5(2026)和DeepSeek-V3(2026)根据epos2020指南采用不同提示策略对CRS可切除性进行分类的性能。方法:回顾性分析150例慢性鼻窦炎病例,三位鼻科学专家根据epos2020标准对可切除性进行分类。基于准确性、敏感性、特异性、PPV、NPV和F1评分,使用默认知识、情境和思维链(CoT)提示对GPT-5.5和DeepSeek-V3进行评估。根据鼻息肉状态和手术资格进行预先指定的亚组分析,以评估提示策略效果的一致性。比较有人工智能辅助和没有人工智能辅助的耳鼻喉科住院医师的表现。统计分析包括卡方检验或Fisher精确检验、Student t检验或Mann-Whitney U检验和方差分析检验。结果:在默认知识下,DeepSeek-V3的准确率高于GPT-5.5 (81.3% vs. 72.7%, p p p = 1.00)。亚组分析显示GPT-5.5亚组的效果一致,而DeepSeek-V3则表现出异质的反应模式。此外,CoT辅助耳鼻喉科住院医师的准确率明显高于未辅助的同行(GPT-5.5: 97.3% vs. 72.8%, p p p p)。结论:当使用CoT提示策略时,ChatGPT-5.5和DeepSeek-V3在可切除性分类方面取得了相似的高准确率。虽然人工智能生成的报告提高了外科医生的准确性和效率,但在广泛的临床应用之前,这些模型应该进一步验证作为支持工具。
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
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
283
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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