ArticleJMIR medical informatics2024
Evaluating the Capabilities of Generative AI Tools in Understanding Medical Papers: Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of the Use of a Large Language Model for Detecting Sentiment in Student Course Evaluation.Family medicine · 2026Article
- Comparing Artificial Intelligence-Generated and Clinician-Created Personalized Self-Management Guidance for Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: Blinded Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
- Large Language Models' Responses to Spinal Cord Injury: A Comparative Study of Performance.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- Demographic and Physical Determinants of Unhealthy Food Consumption in Polish Long-Term Care Facilities.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence-large language models (AI-LLMs) for reliable and accurate cardiotocography (CTG) interpretation in obstetric practice.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- A Pilot Study on Generative Artificial Intelligence's Reliability in Qualitative Research Quality Appraisal Using CASP and JBI Checklists.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReading medical papers is a challenging and time-consuming task for doctors, especially when the papers are long and complex. A tool that can help doctors efficiently process and understand medical papers is needed.
objectiveThis study aims to critically assess and compare the comprehension capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in accurately and efficiently understanding medical research papers using the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist, which provides a standardized framework for evaluating key elements of observational study.
methodsThe study is a methodological type of research. The study aims to evaluate the understanding capabilities of new generative artificial intelligence tools in medical papers. A novel benchmark pipeline processed 50 medical research papers from PubMed, comparing the answers of 6 LLMs (GPT-3.5-Turbo, GPT-4-0613, GPT-4-1106, PaLM 2, Claude v1, and Gemini Pro) to the benchmark established by expert medical professors. Fifteen questions, derived from the STROBE checklist, assessed LLMs' understanding of different sections of a research paper.
resultsLLMs exhibited varying performance, with GPT-3.5-Turbo achieving the highest percentage of correct answers (n=3916, 66.9%), followed by GPT-4-1106 (n=3837, 65.6%), PaLM 2 (n=3632, 62.1%), Claude v1 (n=2887, 58.3%), Gemini Pro (n=2878, 49.2%), and GPT-4-0613 (n=2580, 44.1%). Statistical analysis revealed statistically significant differences between LLMs (P<.001), with older models showing inconsistent performance compared to newer versions. LLMs showcased distinct performances for each question across different parts of a scholarly paper-with certain models like PaLM 2 and GPT-3.5 showing remarkable versatility and depth in understanding.
conclusionsThis study is the first to evaluate the performance of different LLMs in understanding medical papers using the retrieval augmented generation method. The findings highlight the potential of LLMs to enhance medical research by improving efficiency and facilitating evidence-based decision-making. Further research is needed to address limitations such as the influence of question formats, potential biases, and the rapid evolution of LLM models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.