Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40367512›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Identification of Online Health Information Using Large Pretrained Language Models: Mixed Methods Study.

Dongmei Tan, Yi Huang, Ming Liu, Ziyu Li, Xiaoqian Wu, Cheng Huang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet 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

6 authors.

Dongmei TanCollege of Medical Informatics, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5967-8396
Yi HuangCollege of Medical Informatics, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6258-801X
Ming LiuCollege of Medical Informatics, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3937-0557
Ziyu LiHuman Resources Department, Army Medical Center, Army Medical University (The Third Military Medical University), Chongqing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0334-9075
Xiaoqian WuDepartment of Quality Management, Army Medical Center, Army Medical University (The Third Military Medical University), Chongqing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6416-2445
Cheng HuangCollege of Medical Informatics, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7937-7166

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline health information is widely available, but a substantial portion of it is inaccurate or misleading, including exaggerated, incomplete, or unverified claims. Such misinformation can significantly influence public health decisions and pose serious challenges to health care systems. With advances in artificial intelligence and natural language processing, pretrained large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in identifying and distinguishing misleading health information, although their effectiveness in this area remains underexplored.

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the performance of 4 mainstream LLMs (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Ernie Bot, and iFLYTEK Spark) in the identification of online health information, providing empirical evidence for their practical application in this field.

methodsWeb scraping was used to collect data from rumor-refuting websites, resulting in 2708 samples of online health information, including both true and false claims. The 4 LLMs' application programming interfaces were used for authenticity verification, with expert results as benchmarks. Model performance was evaluated using semantic similarity, accuracy, recall, F

resultsThis study found that the 4 models performed well in identifying online health information. Among them, ChatGPT-4 achieved the highest accuracy at 87.27%, followed by Ernie Bot at 87.25%, iFLYTEK Spark at 87%, and ChatGPT-3.5 at 81.82%. Furthermore, text length and semantic similarity analysis showed that Ernie Bot had the highest similarity to expert texts, whereas ChatGPT-4 showed good overall consistency in its explanations. In addition, the credibility assessment results indicated that ChatGPT-4 provided the most reliable evaluations. Further analysis suggested that the highest misjudgment probabilities with respect to the LLMs occurred within the topics of food and maternal-infant nutrition management and nutritional science and food controversies. Overall, the research suggests that LLMs have potential in online health information identification; however, their understanding of certain specialized health topics may require further improvement.

conclusionsThe results demonstrate that, while these models show potential in providing assistance, their performance varies significantly in terms of accuracy, semantic understanding, and cultural adaptability. The principal findings highlight the models' ability to generate accessible and context-aware explanations; however, they fall short in areas requiring specialized medical knowledge or updated data, particularly for emerging health issues and context-sensitive scenarios. Significant discrepancies were observed in the models' ability to distinguish scientifically verified knowledge from popular misconceptions and in their stability when processing complex linguistic and cultural contexts. These challenges reveal the importance of refining training methodologies to improve the models' reliability and adaptability. Future research should focus on enhancing the models' capability to manage nuanced health topics and diverse cultural and linguistic nuances, thereby facilitating their broader adoption as reliable tools for online health information identification.

Indexed as

Consumer Health InformationInternetNatural Language ProcessingArtificial IntelligenceHumansLanguageartificial intelligenceChatGPTinformation identificationlarge pretrained language modelslatent Dirichlet allocationonline health informationperformance evaluationtext generationtext similarity analysis

Identifiers

PMID40367512
PMCPMC12120363

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.