ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Positive sentiments in early academic literature on DeepSeek: a cross-disciplinary mini review.
Review in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DeepSeek is a free and self-hostable large language model (LLM) that recently became the most downloaded app across 156 countries. As early academic literature on ChatGPT was predominantly critical of the model, this mini-review is interested in examining how DeepSeek is being evaluated across academic disciplines. The review analyzes available articles with DeepSeek in the title, abstract, or keywords, using the VADER sentiment analysis library. Due to limitations in comparing sentiment across languages, we excluded Chinese literature in our selection. We found that Computer Science, Engineering, and Medicine are the most prominent fields studying DeepSeek, showing an overall positive sentiment. Notably, Computer Science had the highest mean sentiment and the most positive articles. Other fields of interest included Mathematics, Business, and Environmental Science. While there is substantial academic interest in DeepSeek's practicality and performance, discussions on its political or ethical implications are limited in academic literature. In contrast to ChatGPT, where all early literature carried a negative sentiment, DeepSeek literature is mainly positive. This study enhances our understanding of DeepSeek's reception in the scientific community and suggests that further research could explore regional perspectives.
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.