Table 1_Benchmarking large language models on a Chinese radiation oncology technology examination-preparation question set: accuracy, consensus, and efficiency for AI assisted education.docx

All six overall pairwise comparisons remained significant after Holm adjustment. DS-Fast and DS-Expert produced identical responses for 1, 034 of 1, 053 questions (98.2%), all of which were correct. GPT-5.4 and DS-Expert showed 100% conditional accuracy among shared responses, but their identical-response coverage was only 65.9% (694/1, 053).

Model-reported latency estimates were lowest for DS-Fast (0.68 ± 1.00 seconds) and highest for DS-Expert (3.69 ± 2.24 seconds). Under the English-translated condition, overall accuracy rates were 62.6%, 61.5%, 66.5%, and 76.9%, respectively. DS-Expert remained the most accurate configuration, although its advantage over the GPT models was reduced.</p>Conclusion<p>DeepSeek configurations outperformed the GPT models on this Chinese-language examination-preparation question set, with DS-Expert achieving the highest accuracy.

However, performance varied substantially by question language. These findings support further evaluation for answer verification and practice-question review, but they do not establish educational effectiveness.</p>