Performance Evaluation of GPT-5, Grok 4, and DeepSeek R1 in Interpreting Complete Blood Count Reports for Hematologic Diseases: Retrospective Comparative Study

1Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate potential in the laboratory, yet rigorous clinical evaluation remains limited. The opacity of LLM decision-making constrains their safe application in interpreting complete blood count (CBC) reports for hematologic diseases. Objective: This study aimed to conduct an exploratory evaluation of GPT-5, Grok 4, and DeepSeek R1 in interpreting real-world CBC reports, particularly their reasoning capabilities and clinical safety. Methods: This single-center retrospective study analyzed 100 CBC reports from initial-visit patients with hematologic conditions. After responses were generated by the 3 LLMs using standardized Chinese prompts, four trained laboratory physicians blindly evaluated them across 6 quality and 5 task dimensions. Interrater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and performance differences were assessed based on 4-rater consensus scores and Friedman and Wilcoxon tests. For task 4 (ablation analysis), the McNemar test was used to compare top-1 diagnostic concordance with the gold-standard diagnosis within each model, with and without initial clinical suspicion in the prompt. Error types and distributions were documented during the task evaluation. Results: DeepSeek R1 demonstrated excellent interrater reliability across most quality dimensions (ICC ≥0.75). In the quality dimension, DeepSeek R1 significantly outperformed the other models in comprehensiveness, accuracy, clarity, relevance, and practicality. In the task 4 evaluation, GPT-5 demonstrated the highest concordance (93/100, 93%) with gold-standard diagnoses, followed by DeepSeek R1 (92/100, 92%) and Grok 4 (89/100, 89%). After removing the initial clinical suspicion, these rates decreased to 79% (79/100), 77% (77/100), and 72% (72/100), representing statistically significant within-model reductions for all models (P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ye, X., Qi, X., Fan, L., Yu, Q., Zhou, S., Ren, C., & Yang, D. (2026). Performance Evaluation of GPT-5, Grok 4, and DeepSeek R1 in Interpreting Complete Blood Count Reports for Hematologic Diseases: Retrospective Comparative Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 28. https://doi.org/10.2196/87802

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free