ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
A comparative analysis of large language models on clinical questions for autoimmune diseases.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A multicenter multifunctional assessment of large language models in pure-tone audiogram interpretation for patients.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has made great strides. To explore the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in providing medical services to patients and assisting physicians in clinical practice, our study evaluated the performance in delivering clinical questions related to autoimmune diseases. Methods: 46 questions related to autoimmune diseases were input into ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, and Gemini. The responses were then evaluated by rheumatologists based on five quality dimensions: relevance, correctness, completeness, helpfulness, and safety. Simultaneously, the responses were assessed by laboratory specialists across six medical fields: concept, clinical features, report interpretation, diagnosis, prevention and treatment, and prognosis. Finally, statistical analysis and comparisons were performed on the performance of the three chatbots in the five quality dimensions and six medical fields. Results: ChatGPT 4.0 outperformed both ChatGPT 3.5 and Gemini across all five quality dimensions, with an average score of 199.8 ± 10.4, significantly higher than ChatGPT 3.5 (175.7 ± 16.6) and Gemini (179.1 ± 11.8) ( Conclusions: This study demonstrates that ChatGPT 4.0 significantly outperforms ChatGPT 3.5 and Gemini in addressing clinical questions related to autoimmune diseases, showing notable advantages across all five quality dimensions and six clinical domains. These findings further highlight the potential of large language models in enhancing healthcare services.
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.