ArticleObesity surgery2026
Accuracy and Knowledge Base Evaluation of ChatGPT-4o, Gemini-2.0-Flash, and DeepSeek-V3 in Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: an Expert-Rated Blinded Study.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in medicine; however, their accuracy in guideline-driven, high-stakes specialties, such as metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS), remains uncertain. This study evaluates the performance of ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 2.0 Flash, and DeepSeek-V3 in generating guideline-concordant responses to MBS clinical questions.
methodsThirty standardized, guideline-based MBS questions were presented to each model. Responses were randomized in order, anonymized (blinded as Model A/B/C), and evaluated by 93 MBS experts using a validated 0–3 scale (0 = inaccurate; 3 = fully guideline-concordant). A repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction tested model differences; reliability was assessed with Cronbach’s α and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
resultsDeepSeek-V3 achieved the highest mean score (2.44 ± 0.40), followed by ChatGPT-4o (1.79 ± 0.46) and Gemini 2.0 Flash (1.63 ± 0.47) (p < 0.001). Fully guideline-concordant ratings (score = 3) were most frequent for DeepSeek (80%) vs. ChatGPT (0%) and Gemini (3.3%). Internal consistency was excellent (α > 0.90), and inter-rater reliability was strong (ICC > 0.88). When mapped against the QUEST evaluation framework, the study addressed Quality and Understanding but did not fully capture Expression, Safety, or Trust dimensions.
conclusionsDeepSeek-V3 outperformed ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 2.0 Flash in generating guideline-concordant responses in MBS. These results highlight the need for ongoing, domain-focused validation before clinical use.
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.