Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41380151›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2025

Large Language Model Evaluation in Traditional Chinese Medicine for Stroke: Quantitative Benchmarking Study.

Hulin Long, Yang Deng, Yaoguang Guo, Zifan Shen, Yuzhu Zhang, Ji Bao, Yang He

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hulin LongHospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.ORCID 0009-0006-3475-1744
Yang DengInstitute of Clinical Pathology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9677-3475
Yaoguang GuoHospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8988-1577
Zifan ShenPhysical Education Institute, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.ORCID 0009-0003-9403-7284
Yuzhu ZhangChengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.ORCID 0009-0009-7087-2342
Ji BaoInstitute of Clinical Pathology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8413-3270
Yang HeHospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.ORCID 0009-0000-2963-3897

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe application of large language models (LLMs) in medicine is rapidly advancing. However, evaluating LLM capabilities in specialized domains such as traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), which possesses a unique theoretical system and cognitive framework, remains a sizable challenge.

objectiveThis study aimed to provide an empirical evaluation of different LLM types in the specialized domain of TCM stroke.

methodsThe Traditional Chinese Medicine-Stroke Evaluation Dataset (TCM-SED), a 203-question benchmark, was systematically constructed. The dataset includes 3 paradigms (short-answer questions, multiple-choice questions, and essay questions) and covers multiple knowledge dimensions, including diagnosis, pattern differentiation and treatment, herbal formulas, acupuncture, interpretation of classical texts, and patient communication. Gold standard answers were established through a multiexpert cross-validation and consensus process. The TCM-SED was subsequently used to comprehensively test 2 representative LLM models: GPT-4o (a leading international general-purpose model) and DeepSeek-R1 (a large model primarily trained on Chinese corpora).

resultsThe test results revealed a differentiation in model capabilities across cognitive levels. In objective sections emphasizing precise knowledge recall, DeepSeek-R1 comprehensively outperformed GPT-4o, achieving an accuracy lead of more than 17% in the multiple-choice section (96/137, 70.1% vs 72/137, 52.6%, respectively). Conversely, in the essay section, which tested knowledge integration and complex reasoning, GPT-4o's performance notably surpassed that of DeepSeek-R1. For instance, in the interpretation of classical texts category, GPT-4o achieved a scoring rate of 90.5% (181/200), far exceeding DeepSeek-R1 (147/200, 73.5%).

conclusionsThis empirical study demonstrates that Chinese-centric models have a substantial advantage in static knowledge tasks within the TCM domain, whereas leading general-purpose models exhibit stronger dynamic reasoning and content generation capabilities. The TCM-SED, developed as the benchmark for this study, serves as an effective quantitative tool for evaluating and selecting appropriate LLMs for TCM scenarios. It also offers a valuable data foundation and a new research direction for future model optimization and alignment.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingLanguageMedicine, Chinese TraditionalStrokeHumansLarge Language Modelsartificial intelligenceevaluation datasetlarge language modelsmodel evaluationstroketraditional Chinese medicine

Identifiers

PMID41380151
PMCPMC12741655

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.