Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39644377›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2025

The role of large language models in self-care: a study and benchmark on medicines and supplement guidance accuracy.

Branco De Busser, Lynn Roth, Hans De Loof

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Understanding Public Awareness, Attitudes, Beliefs, and Perceptions About ChatGPT in Saudi Arabia: A Road Map for Digital Health.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Branco De BusserLaboratory of Physiopharmacology, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-5432-9194
Lynn RothLaboratory of Physiopharmacology, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1397-1810
Hans De LoofLaboratory of Physiopharmacology, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium. hans.deloof@uantwerpen.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4488-551X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe recent surge in the capabilities of artificial intelligence systems, particularly large language models, is also impacting the medical and pharmaceutical field in a major way. Beyond specialized uses in diagnostics and data discovery, these tools have now become accessible to the general public.

aimThe study aimed to critically analyse the current performance of large language models in answering patient's self-care questions regarding medications and supplements.

methodAnswers from six major language models were analysed for correctness, language-independence, context-sensitivity, and reproducibility using a newly developed reference set of questions and a scoring matrix.

resultsThe investigated large language models are capable of answering a clear majority of self-care questions accurately, providing relevant health information. However, substantial variability in the responses, including potentially unsafe advice, was observed, influenced by language, question structure, user context and time. GPT 4.0 scored highest on average, while GPT 3.5, Gemini, and Gemini Advanced had varied scores. Responses were context and language sensitive. In terms of consistency over time, Perplexity had the worst performance.

conclusionGiven the high-quality output of large language models, their potential in self-care applications is undeniable. The newly created benchmark can facilitate further validation and guide the establishment of strict safeguards to combat the sizable risk of misinformation in order to reach a more favourable risk/benefit ratio when this cutting-edge technology is used by patients.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBenchmarkingDietary SupplementsLanguageSelf CareHumansLarge Language ModelsReproducibility of ResultsArtificial intelligenceClinicalDecision support systemsLarge language modelNonprescription drugsPharmacistsSelf-care

Identifiers

PMID39644377
PMCPMC12335388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.