AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
PDF (1.1 MB)
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Original Article | Open Access

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

Zheng Zhu1 , Yanfeng Zhao1 ( ), Lin Li1 ( ), Xiaoyi Wang1, Yongming Zhang2, Xinming Zhao1
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
Department of Education, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
Show Author Information

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.

Graphical Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrated variable proficiency in resident physician in radiology questions, with Gemini‐2.0 showing higher accuracy. Repeated self‐examination of LLMs through the introduction of doubt does not consistently or significantly enhance their performance on radiology‐related questions.

References

【1】
【1】
 
 
Health Care Science
Pages 436-447

{{item.num}}

Comments on this article

Go to comment

< Back to all reports

Review Status: {{reviewData.commendedNum}} Commended , {{reviewData.revisionRequiredNum}} Revision Required , {{reviewData.notCommendedNum}} Not Commended Under Peer Review

Review Comment

Close
Close
Cite this article:
Zhu Z, Zhao Y, Li L, et al. Artificial Intelligence Performance Under Different Conditions in Answering China's Standardized Training Examination for Resident Physician in Radiology: A Comparative Analysis. Health Care Science, 2026, 5(5): 436-447. https://doi.org/10.1002/hcs2.70085

3

Views

0

Downloads

0

Crossref

0

Web of Science

0

Scopus

Received: 30 December 2025
Revised: 22 January 2026
Accepted: 08 February 2026
Published: 29 June 2026
© 2026 The Author(s). Tsinghua University Press.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.