ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Large Language Model Evaluation in Traditional Chinese Medicine for Stroke: Quantitative Benchmarking Study.
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.
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.
- Beyond transparency: why Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) need explainable artificial intelligence (XAI).Chinese medicine · 2026Review
- A roadmap for medical large language models: a review of foundations, applications, and challenges.Military Medical Research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.