ArticleBJU international2025
Evaluating interactions of patients with large language models for medical information.
Article in BJU international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large Language Models as Health Information Tools: Patient Use and Trust in Otolaryngology.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions of Large Language Models in Health Care Communication: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- [Large language models as a communication and organizational infrastructure in urology: evidence, limitations, and clinical responsibility].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Transforming Urological Care With Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: From Digital Assistants to Clinical Partners.International neurourology journal · 2026Review
- Holistic evaluation of large language models for medical tasks with MedHELM.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- AI-Driven Medical Device Risk Management: A New Paradigm Integrating Large Language Models and Prompt Engineering for Standard-Risk Knowledge Graph Construction and Application.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- Patients' perception towards large language models in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery: a single-centre survey.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Readability of Chatbot Responses in Prostate Cancer and Urological Care: Objective Metrics Versus Patient Perceptions.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- How Accurate Is AI? A Critical Evaluation of Commonly Used Large Language Models in Responding to Patient Concerns About Incidental Kidney Tumors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the interaction of real-world patients with a chatbot in a clinical setting, investigating key aspects of medical information provided by large language models (LLMs). PATIENTS AND
methodsThe study enrolled 300 patients seeking urological counselling between February and July 2024. First, participants voluntarily conversed with a Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4) powered chatbot to ask questions related to their medical situation. In the following survey, patients rated the perceived utility, completeness, and understandability of the information provided during the simulated conversation as well as user-friendliness. Finally, patients were asked which, in their experience, best answered their questions: LLMs, urologists, or search engines.
resultsA total of 292 patients completed the study. The majority of patients perceived the chatbot as providing useful, complete, and understandable information, as well as being user-friendly. However, the ability of human urologists to answer medical questions in an understandable way was rated higher than of LLMs. Interestingly, 53% of participants rated the question-answering ability of LLMs higher than search engines. Age was not associated with preferences. Limitations include social desirability and sampling biases. DISCUSSION: This study highlights the potential of LLMs to enhance patient education and communication in clinical settings, with patients valuing their user-friendliness and comprehensiveness for medical information. By addressing preliminary questions, LLMs could potentially relieve time constraints on healthcare providers, enabling medical personnel to focus on complex inquiries and patient care.
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.