ArticleScientific reports2025
Quality assessment of large language models' output in maternal health.
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 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.
- The Reliability of Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Health Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Prompt injection of OpenAI custom GPTs leaks informatics secrets.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT-5 responses in obstetric and gynecological emergencies: concordance, readability, and clinical reliability.BMC emergency 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
Optimising healthcare is linked to broadening access to health literacy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. The safe and responsible deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) may provide accurate, reliable, and culturally relevant healthcare information. We aimed to assess the quality of outputs generated by LLMs addressing maternal health. We employed GPT-4, GPT-3.5, GPT-3.5 custom, Meditron-70b. Using mixed-methods, cross-sectional survey approach, specialists from Brazil, United States, and Pakistan assessed LLM-generated responses in their native languages to a set of three questions relating to maternal health. Evaluators assessed the answers in technical and non-technical scenarios. The LLMs' responses were evaluated regarding information quality, clarity, readability and adequacy. Of the 47 respondents, 85% were female, mean age of 50 years old, with a mean of 19 years of experience (volume of 110 assisted pregnancies monthly). Scores attributed to answers by GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 were consistently higher [Overall, GPT-3.5, 3.9 (3.8-4.1); GPT-4.0, 3.9 (3.8-4.1); Custom GPT-3.5, 2.7 (2.5-2.8); Meditron-70b, 3.5 (3.3-3.6); p = 0.000]. The responses garnered high scores for clarity (Q&A-1 3.5, Q&A-2 3.7, Q&A-3 3.8) and for quality of content (Q&A-1 3.2, Q&A-2 3.2, Q&A-3 3.7); however, they differed by language. The commonest limitation to quality was incomplete content. Readability analysis indicated that responses may require high educational level for comprehension. Gender bias was detected, as models referred to healthcare professionals as males. Overall, GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 outperformed all other models. These findings highlight the potential of artificial intelligence in improving access to high-quality maternal health information. Given the complex process of generating high-quality non-English databases, it is desirable to incorporate more accurate translation tools and resourceful architectures for contextualization and customisation.
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.