ArticleJournal of mid-life health
Evaluating Accuracy and Readability of Responses to Midlife Health Questions: A Comparative Analysis of Six Large Language Model Chatbots.
Article in Journal of mid-life health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smartphone Applications in Dermatology With Special Focus on AI: A European-Continent-Based Review.International journal of dermatology · 2026Review
- Assessment of Generative AI Chatbots for Neonatal Diagnostic Reasoning: A Comparative Concordance and Diagnosis Acceptability Analysis.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Evaluating the usefulness of ChatGPT and Gemini in generating educational content for patients with vitiligo: a comparative cross-sectional study.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of large language model (LLM) chatbots in health-related queries is growing due to their convenience and accessibility. However, concerns about the accuracy and readability of their information persist. Many individuals, including patients and healthy adults, may rely on chatbots for midlife health queries instead of consulting a doctor. In this context, we evaluated the accuracy and readability of responses from six LLM chatbots to midlife health questions for men and women. Methods: Twenty questions on midlife health were asked to six different LLM chatbots - ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini, Meta artificial intelligence (AI), and Perplexity. Each chatbot's responses were collected and evaluated for accuracy, relevancy, fluency, and coherence by three independent expert physicians. An overall score was also calculated by taking the average of four criteria. In addition, readability was analyzed using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, to determine how easily the information could be understood by the general population. Results: In terms of fluency, Perplexity scored the highest (4.3 ± 1.78), coherence was highest for Meta AI (4.26 ± 0.16), accuracy of responses was highest for Meta AI, and relevancy score was highest for Meta AI (4.35 ± 0.24). Overall, Meta AI scored the highest (4.28 ± 0.16), followed by ChatGPT (4.22 ± 0.21), whereas Copilot had the lowest score (3.72 ± 0.19) ( Conclusion: LLM chatbots can answer midlife-related health questions with variable capabilities. Meta AI was found to be highest scoring chatbot for addressing men's and women's midlife health questions, whereas Perplexity offers high readability for accessible information. Hence, LLM chatbots can be used as educational tools for midlife health by selecting appropriate chatbots according to its capability.
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.