Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39794312›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2025

Proficiency, Clarity, and Objectivity of Large Language Models Versus Specialists' Knowledge on COVID-19's Impacts in Pregnancy: Cross-Sectional Pilot Study.

Nicola Luigi Bragazzi, Michèle Buchinger, Hisham Atwan, Ruba Tuma, Francesco Chirico, Lukasz Szarpak, Raymond Farah, Rola Khamisy-Farah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Nicola Luigi BragazziLaboratory for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8409-868X
Michèle BuchingerAzrieli Faculty of Medicine, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.ORCID 0009-0003-9186-4882
Hisham AtwanKaplan Medical Centre, Department of Internal Medicine, Hebrew University, Rehovot, Israel.ORCID 0009-0008-0433-8152
Ruba TumaAzrieli Faculty of Medicine, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-1578-5854
Francesco ChiricoPost-Graduate School of Occupational Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8737-4368
Lukasz SzarpakHenry JN Taub Department of Emergency Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0973-5455
Raymond FarahAzrieli Faculty of Medicine, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-9777-5106
Rola Khamisy-FarahAzrieli Faculty of Medicine, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-0578-7178

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has significantly strained health care systems globally, leading to an overwhelming influx of patients and exacerbating resource limitations. Concurrently, an "infodemic" of misinformation, particularly prevalent in women's health, has emerged. This challenge has been pivotal for health care providers, especially gynecologists and obstetricians, in managing pregnant women's health. The pandemic heightened risks for pregnant women from COVID-19, necessitating balanced advice from specialists on vaccine safety versus known risks. In addition, the advent of generative artificial intelligence (AI), such as large language models (LLMs), offers promising support in health care. However, they necessitate rigorous testing.

objectiveThis study aimed to assess LLMs' proficiency, clarity, and objectivity regarding COVID-19's impacts on pregnancy.

methodsThis study evaluates 4 major AI prototypes (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Microsoft Copilot, and Google Bard) using zero-shot prompts in a questionnaire validated among 159 Israeli gynecologists and obstetricians. The questionnaire assesses proficiency in providing accurate information on COVID-19 in relation to pregnancy. Text-mining, sentiment analysis, and readability (Flesch-Kincaid grade level and Flesch Reading Ease Score) were also conducted.

resultsIn terms of LLMs' knowledge, ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Copilot each scored 97% (32/33), Google Bard 94% (31/33), and ChatGPT-3.5 82% (27/33). ChatGPT-4 incorrectly stated an increased risk of miscarriage due to COVID-19. Google Bard and Microsoft Copilot had minor inaccuracies concerning COVID-19 transmission and complications. In the sentiment analysis, Microsoft Copilot achieved the least negative score (-4), followed by ChatGPT-4 (-6) and Google Bard (-7), while ChatGPT-3.5 obtained the most negative score (-12). Finally, concerning the readability analysis, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Flesch Reading Ease Score showed that Microsoft Copilot was the most accessible at 9.9 and 49, followed by ChatGPT-4 at 12.4 and 37.1, while ChatGPT-3.5 (12.9 and 35.6) and Google Bard (12.9 and 35.8) generated particularly complex responses.

conclusionsThe study highlights varying knowledge levels of LLMs in relation to COVID-19 and pregnancy. ChatGPT-3.5 showed the least knowledge and alignment with scientific evidence. Readability and complexity analyses suggest that each AI's approach was tailored to specific audiences, with ChatGPT versions being more suitable for specialized readers and Microsoft Copilot for the general public. Sentiment analysis revealed notable variations in the way LLMs communicated critical information, underscoring the essential role of neutral and objective health care communication in ensuring that pregnant women, particularly vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic, receive accurate and reassuring guidance. Overall, ChatGPT-4, Microsoft Copilot, and Google Bard generally provided accurate, updated information on COVID-19 and vaccines in maternal and fetal health, aligning with health guidelines. The study demonstrated the potential role of AI in supplementing health care knowledge, with a need for continuous updating and verification of AI knowledge bases. The choice of AI tool should consider the target audience and required information detail level.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCOVID-19Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGynecologyHumansIsraelLarge Language ModelsObstetricsPilot ProjectsPregnancySARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesaccuracychatGPTCOVID-19generative artificial intelligencegoogle bardgynecologyinfectiouslarge language modelmicrosoft copilotnatural language processingobstetricpregnancyreadabilityreproductive healthsentimenttext miningvaccinationvaccinewomenzero shot

Identifiers

PMID39794312
PMCPMC11840386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.