AI paper index

Reasoning vs. conventional large language models for BI-RADS educational questions answering: a multi-model comparative evaluation

2026-08-28 · Frontiers in Medicine

One-line summary

An AI research paper on Reasoning vs. conventional large language models for BI-RADS educational questions answering: a multi-model comparative evaluation.

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the aipentium editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充:本站会优先为大语言模型、生成式AI、ChatGPT相关技术、计算机视觉、深度学习等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Objective To compare reasoning vs. conventional large language models (LLMs) in generating answers with guideline-aligned explanations for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) educational questions. Methods In this prospective study performed from February 6 to 12, 2025, 49 English-Chinese question pairs were extracted from BI-RADS Atlas Fifth Edition. Two reasoning LLMs (ChatGPT-o1, Deepseek-R1) and six conventional LLMs (Gemini2.0-Flash, Deepseek-V3, ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-3.5, Qwen-2.5, and WenXinYiYan-3.5) generated answers and explanations to the questions through structured prompts. Three radiologists specialized in breast imaging independently evaluated responses using a 5-point Likert scale, with reference to standard answers. Results The reasoning LLMs significantly outperformed conventional models (median [interquartile range (IQR)]: 3.7 [2.7–4.0] vs. 2.7 [2.0–3.7], P < 0.001), with ChatGPT-o1 and Deepseek-R1 demonstrating peak performance. Both categories of LLMs exhibited significant score reductions in handling questions with multifaceted clinical scenarios (reasoning models: median 4.0 [2.7–4.3] vs. 2.7 [2.3–2.7], Δ median = −1.3, P < 0.001; conventional models: 2.7 [2.0–3.7] vs. 2.3 [2.0–2.7], Δ median = −0.4, P < 0.001). While question language showed no significant impact on reasoning LLMs (ChatGPT-o1 and Deepseek-R1), it affected some conventional models (ChatGPT-3.5, Deepseek-V3 and Gemini2.0-Flash). LLMs performance remained independent of question section and question type. Conclusions Reasoning LLMs show significant potential for BI-RADS guideline explanation and education, but require specific optimization for complex clinical scenario instruction.

5.0Engineering value
7.0Research novelty
4.0Business relevance

Links and sources

Need this topic turned into a technical roadmap?

aipentium can prepare a custom AI literature review, code map, dataset map, and B2B technology assessment.

Request B2B AI research

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts on this paper.
Login or register to leave a comment