ABSTRACT
Purpose To compare the performance and cost-effectiveness of DeepSeek-R1 with OpenAI o1 in diagnosing and managing ophthalmology clinical cases.
Study Design Cross-sectional evaluation.
Methods A total of 300 clinical cases spanning 10 different ophthalmology subspecialties were collected from StatPearls. Each case presented a multiple-choice question regarding the diagnosis or management of the clinical case. DeepSeek-R1 was accessed through its public chat-based interface, while OpenAI o1 was queried via an Application Program Interface (API) with a standardized temperature setting of 0.3. Both models were prompted using the Plan-and-Solve+ (PS+) prompt engineering method, instructing them to answer multiple choice questions for each case. Performance was calculated as the proportion of correctly answered multiple choice questions. McNemar’s test was employed to compare the two models’ performance on paired data. Inter-model agreement for correct diagnoses was evaluated via Cohen’s kappa. A token-based cost analysis was performed to estimate the comparative expenditures of running each model at scale, accounting for both input prompts and model-generated output.
Results DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI o1 both achieved an identical overall performance of 82.0% (n=246/300; 95% CI: 77.3-85.9). Subspeciality-specific analysis revealed numerical variation in performance, though none of these comparisons reached statistical significance (p>0.05).
Agreement in performance between the models was moderate overall (κ=0.503, p<0.001), with substantial agreement in Refractive Management/Intervention (κ=0.698, p<0.001) and moderate agreement in Retina/Vitreous (κ=0.561, p<0.001) and Ocular Pathology/Oncology (κ=0.495, p<0.01) cases. Cost analysis indicated an approximately 15-fold reduction in per-query, token-related expenses when using DeepSeek-R1 compared with OpenAI o1 for the same workload.
Conclusions DeepSeek-R1 demonstrates robust diagnostic reasoning and management decision-making capabilities, performing comparably to OpenAI o1 across a range of ophthalmic subspecialty cases, while also offering a substantial reduction in usage costs. These findings highlight the feasibility of utilizing open-weight, reinforcement learning-augmented LLMs as an accessible, cost-effective alternative to proprietary models.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Financial Disclosures: None.
Conflicts of Interest: None.
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos