Back

General-Purpose vs. Domain-Specific Large Language Models in Antibiotic Clinical Decision-Making: A Double-Blind Evaluation with a 2X2 Factorial Design

Liu, Y.; Zhang, C.; Wang, F.; Xu, W.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, S.; zhang, H.

2026-07-13 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.64898/2026.07.11.26357814 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Antimicrobial resistance poses a major threat to global public health. Large language models (LLMs) offer new possibilities for optimizing antibiotic prescribing decisions, but the capabilities of general-purpose versus domain-specific medical LLMs under different prompting strategies remain to be clarified. Methods: This double-blind, randomized-sequence evaluation used a 2X2 factorial design comparing four AI conditions-the domain-specific model MedGo and the general-purpose model DeepSeek V3.5, each under standard direct prompting and chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting-alongside real physician prescriptions across 59 complex inpatient infection cases. Five parallel regimens were generated per case and independently evaluated by three senior clinicians (1-5 comprehensive score and five domain sub-scores). ChatGPT 5.2 was additionally assessed as an automated evaluation tool. Results: Score ranking: real physicians > MedGo-CoT > DeepSeek-CoT > MedGo> DeepSeek (Friedman test, p<0.001). In base mode, MedGo significantly outperformed DeepSeek (Holm-adjusted p=0.040). CoT improved both models (Holm-adjusted p<0.001 for DeepSeek; p=0.024 for MedGo) and reduced score dispersion. MedGo-CoT significantly outperformed DeepSeek-CoT in individualized adjustment (adjusted p<0.001) and dosing precision (adjusted p=0.005). ChatGPT-expert correlation was negligible (overall Kendall {tau}=0.153, p=0.003; subgroup {tau}=0.06-0.20, all p>0.05). Conclusions: Domain-specific medical LLMs enhanced by CoT approach the antibiotic decision-making level of real physicians, with advantages in individualization and dosing precision. However, notable deficiencies persist in antimicrobial stewardship ecological awareness and automated evaluation reliability, underscoring the continued indispensability of senior clinical expertise.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 18%
9.9%
2
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
3
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
6.8%
4
Frontiers in Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.8%
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 15%
5.6%
6
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 7%
4.9%
7
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
8
Antibiotics
34 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.7%
9
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.7%
10
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
50% of probability mass above
11
JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
12
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.1%
13
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
14
Wellcome Open Research
67 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
15
npj Antimicrobials and Resistance
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
16
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
46 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
17
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
18
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.5%
19
F1000Research
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
20
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
21
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
22
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 25%
1.1%
23
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
24
Children
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
25
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
26
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
62 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
27
One Health
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
28
Clinical Infectious Diseases
235 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
29
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
130 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
30
Healthcare
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%