Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40121315›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Evaluating the quality of medical content on YouTube using large language models.

Mahmoud Khalil, Fatma Mohamed, Abdulhadi Shoufan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Mahmoud KhalilComputer Science Department, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Fatma MohamedCenter for Cyber-Physical Systems (C2PS), Computer Science Department, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE. fatma.mohamed@ku.ac.ae.
Abdulhadi ShoufanCenter for Cyber-Physical Systems (C2PS), Computer Science Department, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

YouTube has become a dominant source of medical information and health-related decision-making. Yet, many videos on this platform contain inaccurate or biased information. Although expert reviews could help mitigate this situation, the vast number of daily uploads makes this solution impractical. In this study, we explored the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) to assess the quality of medical content on YouTube. We collected a set of videos previously evaluated by experts and prompted twenty models to rate their quality using the DISCERN instrument. We then analyzed the inter-rater agreement between the language models' and experts' ratings using Brennan-Prediger's (BP) Kappa. We found that LLMs exhibited a wide range of inter-rater agreements with the experts (ranging from -1.10 to 0.82). All models tended to give higher scores than the human experts. The agreement on individual questions tended to be lower, with some questions showing significant disagreement between models and experts. Including scoring guidelines in the prompt has improved model performance. We conclude that some LLMs are capable of evaluating the quality of medical videos. If used as stand-alone expert systems or embedded into traditional recommender systems, these models can mitigate the quality issue of health-related online videos.

Indexed as

Social MediaVideo RecordingHumansLarge Language ModelsContent qualityLLMsMedical contentYouTube

Identifiers

PMID40121315
PMCPMC11929840

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.