ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2025
Comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and LLaMA for reliability, quality, and accuracy in familial Mediterranean fever.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-generated patient information leaflets for oral anticoagulants: quality, usability, readability, and reproducibility compared with FDA-referenced materials.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the quality, reliability, and readability of ChatGPT-4 responses related to the treatment and rehabilitation of children with cerebral palsy.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT-4o and Gemini for gout management: a comparative analysis based on EULAR guidelines.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Correspondence on "comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and LLaMA for reliability, quality, and accuracy in familial Mediterranean fever".European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Familial Mediterranean fever (FMF) is the most common monogenic autoinflammatory disease. Large language models (LLMs) offer rapid access to medical information. This study evaluated and compared the reliability, quality, and accuracy of ChatGPT-4o and LLaMA-3.1 for FMF. Single Hub and Access Point for Paediatric Rheumatology in Europe (SHARE) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) guidelines were used for question generation and also for answer validation. Thirty-one questions were developed from a clinician's perspective based on the related guidelines. Two pediatric rheumatologists with over 20 years of FMF experience independently and blindly evaluated the responses. Reliability, quality, and accuracy were assessed using the modified DISCERN Scale, Global Quality Score, and the guidelines, respectively. Readability was assessed using multiple established indices. Statistical analyses included the Shapiro-Wilk test to assess normality, followed by paired t-tests for normally distributed scores, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for non-normally distributed scores. Both models demonstrated moderate reliability and high response quality. In terms of alignment with the guidelines, LLaMA provided fully aligned, complete, and accurate responses to 51.6% (16/31) of the questions, whereas ChatGPT provided such responses to 80.6% (25/31). While 9.7% (4/31) of LLaMA's responses were entirely contradictory to the guidelines, ChatGPT did not produce any such responses. ChatGPT outperformed LLaMA in terms of accuracy, quality, and reliability, with statistical significance. Readability assessments showed that both LLMs required college-level understanding.
conclusionWhile LLMs show great promise, current limitations in accuracy and guideline adherence mean they should supplement, not replace, clinical expertise. CLINICAL
trial registrationThis study does not involve clinical trials; therefore, no clinical trial registration is required. WHAT IS KNOWN: •FMF is the most common hereditary autoinflammatory disease. LLMs are increasingly used to provide clinical information. WHAT IS NEW: •This is the first study to assess two different LLMs in the context of FMF, evaluating their reliability, quality, and alignment with clinical guidelines. ChatGPT-4o outperformed LLaMA-3.1 in reliability,quality, and guideline alignment for FMF. However, both models showed informational gaps that may limit their clinical use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40679644What 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.