Performance of GPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1 in the Polish Infectious Diseases Specialty Exam

Background The past few years have been a time of rapid development in artificial intelligence (AI) and its implementation across numerous fields. This study aimed to compare the performance of GPT-4o (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) and DeepSeek-R1 (DeepSeek AI, Zhejiang, China) on the Polish specialty examination in infectious diseases. Materials and methods The study was conducted from April 1 to April 4, 2025, using the Autumn 2024 Polish specialty examination in infectious diseases. The examination comprised 120 questions, each presenting five answer options, with only one correct choice. The Center for Medical Education (CEM) in Łódź, Poland decided to withdraw one question due to the absence of a definitive correct answer and inconsistency with up-to-date clinical guidelines. Furthermore, the questions were classified as either 'clinical cases' or 'other' to enable a more in-depth evaluation of the potential of artificial intelligence in real-world clinical practice. The accuracy of the responses was verified using the official answer key approved by the CEM. To assess the accuracy and confidence level of the responses provided by GPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1, statistical methods were employed, including Pearson's χ<sup>2</sup> test, and Mann-Whitney U test. Results GPT-4o correctly answered 85 out of 199 questions (71.43%) while DeepSeek-R1 answered correctly 88 out of 199 questions (73.85%). A minimum of 72 (60.5%) correct responses is required to pass the examination. No statistically significant difference was observed between responses to 'clinical case' questions and 'other' questions for either AI model. For both AI models, a statistically significant difference was observed in the confidence levels between correct and incorrect answers, with higher confidence reported for correctly answered questions and lower confidence for incorrectly answered ones. Conclusions Both GPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1 demonstrated the ability to pass the Polish specialty examination in infectious diseases, suggesting their potential as educational tools. Additionally, it is noteworthy that DeepSeek-R1 achieved a performance comparable to GPT-4o, despite being a much newer model on the market and, according to available data, having been developed at significantly lower cost.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cureus
Published
2025-04-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.82870
Citations
10
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.54
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Performance of GPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1 in the Polish Infectious Diseases Specialty Exam

Dawid Jasiński, Michał Gajewski, Ada Łątkowska, Barbara Sławińska et al.
10 citations
Cureus
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
6.54
article

Performance of GPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1 in the Polish Infectious Diseases Specialty Exam

Dawid Jasiński, Michał Gajewski, Ada Łątkowska, Barbara Sławińska, Aleksander Jaworski, Wojciech Jaworski, Oliwia Sysło, Zuzanna Błecha, Konrad Haraziński, Weronika Goliat, Izabela Jastrzębska, Nikola Rubik, Maksym Gmur, Nicole Maryniak
article en
10 citations

Abstract

Background The past few years have been a time of rapid development in artificial intelligence (AI) and its implementation across numerous fields. This study aimed to compare the performance of GPT-4o (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) and DeepSeek-R1 (DeepSeek AI, Zhejiang, China) on the Polish specialty examination in infectious diseases. Materials and methods The study was conducted from April 1 to April 4, 2025, using the Autumn 2024 Polish specialty examination in infectious diseases. The examination comprised 120 questions, each presenting five answer options, with only one correct choice. The Center for Medical Education (CEM) in Łódź, Poland decided to withdraw one question due to the absence of a definitive correct answer and inconsistency with up-to-date clinical guidelines. Furthermore, the questions were classified as either 'clinical cases' or 'other' to enable a more in-depth evaluation of the potential of artificial intelligence in real-world clinical practice. The accuracy of the responses was verified using the official answer key approved by the CEM. To assess the accuracy and confidence level of the responses provided by GPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1, statistical methods were employed, including Pearson's χ<sup>2</sup> test, and Mann-Whitney U test. Results GPT-4o correctly answered 85 out of 199 questions (71.43%) while DeepSeek-R1 answered correctly 88 out of 199 questions (73.85%). A minimum of 72 (60.5%) correct responses is required to pass the examination. No statistically significant difference was observed between responses to 'clinical case' questions and 'other' questions for either AI model. For both AI models, a statistically significant difference was observed in the confidence levels between correct and incorrect answers, with higher confidence reported for correctly answered questions and lower confidence for incorrectly answered ones. Conclusions Both GPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1 demonstrated the ability to pass the Polish specialty examination in infectious diseases, suggesting their potential as educational tools. Additionally, it is noteworthy that DeepSeek-R1 achieved a performance comparable to GPT-4o, despite being a much newer model on the market and, according to available data, having been developed at significantly lower cost.

CureusVol. 17(4)
Poznan University of Medical Sciences (PL), Medical University of Silesia (PL), Wroclaw Medical University (PL), Academy of Fine Arts in Katowice (PL), Polo d’Innovazione di Genomica (IT), Międzyleski Szpital Specjalistyczny w Warszawie (PL), WSB University (PL), Children's Specialized Hospital (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
6.54
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.