biostudies-literatureUnknown22(15)Li CP<b>Objective:</b> This study aimed to compare the performance of DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI-o1 in addressing complex pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)-related clinical questions, focusing on accuracy, comprehensiveness, safety, and reasoning quality. <b>Methods:</b> Twenty PDAC-related questions derived from the up-to-date NCCN guidelines for PDAC were posed to both models. Responses were evaluated for accuracy, comprehensiveness, and safety, and chain-of-thought (CoT) outputs were rated for logical coherence and error handling by blinded clinical experts using 5-point Likert scales. Inter-rater reliability, evaluated scores, and character counts by both models were compared. <b>Results:</b> Both models demonstrated high accuracy (median score: 5 vs. 5, p=0.527) and safety (5 vs. 5, p=0.International journal of medical sciences3868-3877https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12492379biostudies-literaturePunching Above Its Weight: A Head-to-Head Comparison of Deepseek-R1 and OpenAI-o1 on Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma-Related Questions.PMC12492379Jia WWHakenberg PReißfelder CChu YYang CSandra-Petrescu FLi CPfalsePunching Above Its Weight: A Head-to-Head Comparison of Deepseek-R1 and OpenAI-o1 on Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma-Related Questions.<b>Objective:</b> This study aimed to compare the performance of DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI-o1 in addressing complex pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)-related clinical questions, focusing on accuracy, comprehensiveness, safety, and reasoning quality. <b>Methods:</b> Twenty PDAC-related questions derived from the up-to-date NCCN guidelines for PDAC were posed to both models. Responses were evaluated for accuracy, comprehensiveness, and safety, and chain-of-thought (CoT) outputs were rated for logical coherence and error handling by blinded clinical experts using 5-point Likert scales. Inter-rater reliability, evaluated scores, and character counts by both models were compared. <b>Results:</b> Both models demonstrated high accuracy (median score: 5 vs. 5, p=0.527) and safety (5 vs. 5, p=0.2025-01-01T00:00:00Z20252026-05-05T03:20:32.726Z2026-05-05T03:12:54.95ZS-EPMC124923794104944310.7150/ijms.118887