Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41602313›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025

Positive sentiments in early academic literature on DeepSeek: a cross-disciplinary mini review.

Yuxing He, Angie Giangan, Nam Vu, Casey Watters

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Yuxing HeFaculty of Law, Bond University, Robina, QLD, Australia.
Angie GianganIndependent researcher, Robina, QLD, Australia.
Nam VuCentre for Logistics, Procurement and Supply Chain Management, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, United Kingdom.
Casey WattersFaculty of Law, Bond University, Robina, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligencecensorshipChinese AIdeep learningDeepSeeklarge language models (LLM)natural language processing (NLP)neural networks

Identifiers

PMID41602313
PMCPMC12832696

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.