ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2026
A comparative study of ChatGPT and DeepSeek in spinal cord injury patient education: Can artificial intelligence "speak" spinal cord injury?
Article in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications of DeepSeek in Medicine: Bibliometric Analysis and Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Can Large Language Models Answer Questions about Spinal Cord Injury? Risks, Challenges, and Opportunities-A Narrative Review.Neurotrauma reportsReview
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextLarge language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek, are increasingly used by patients for medical information about their health condition. While several studies have explored ChatGPT's performance in spinal cord injury (SCI)-related queries, no direct comparison between GPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3 has been conducted in this context.
methodsThe five most-searched SCI-related topics comprising of forty-eight questions were generated based on top Google Trends search terms. Responses were generated using GPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3, with three outputs per question. A total of two hundred and eighty-eight responses were independently evaluated by three Rehabilitation Physicians using the S.C.O.R.E. framework, which evaluates five domains: Safety, Consensus with Guidelines, Objectivity, Reproducibility, and Explainability on a 5-point Likert scale. Paired t-tests were used to compare model performance.
resultsBoth models achieved high ratings for Safety and Consensus with Guidelines. DeepSeek-V3 scored slightly but significantly higher in Objectivity (
conclusionWhile both GPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3 are generally safe and informative tools for SCI patient education, DeepSeek-V3 demonstrated slightly superior performance in delivering consistent, objective, and well-explained responses. LLMs may serve as useful adjuncts in SCI patient education, but ongoing evaluation and clinician oversight remains essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.