Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40748576›Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2025

Comparative Analysis of Large Language Model and Physician-Generated Responses in Bariatric Patient Inquiries: Assessing the Accuracy and Patient Satisfaction.

Katharina Vedder, Susanne Blank, Tea Wilhelm, Darick Fidan, Ihor Pachkiv, Han Cao, Christel Weiß, Chengpeng Li, Marion Rung-Friebe, Christoph Reissfelder and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors.

Katharina VedderDepartment of Surgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University Medicine Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Susanne BlankDepartment of Surgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University Medicine Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Tea WilhelmDepartment of Surgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University Medicine Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Darick FidanClinic for General and Visceral Surgery, Bethesda Evangelical Hospital, Duisburg, Germany.
Ihor PachkivDepartment of Surgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University Medicine Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Han CaoCentral Institute of Mental Health, Mannheim, Germany.
Christel WeißDepartment of Medical Statistics and Biomathematics, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Chengpeng LiDepartment of Surgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University Medicine Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Marion Rung-FriebeObesity Association Germany, Bottrop, Germany.
Christoph ReissfelderDepartment of Surgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University Medicine Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Mirko OttoDepartment of Surgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University Medicine Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Cui YangDepartment of Surgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University Medicine Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany. cui.yang@umm.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) can generate human-like, empathetic responses within seconds. Their potential in terms of comprehensibility, empathy, and completeness to support physician-patient communication in bariatric surgery care needs to be evaluated.

methodsWe collected 200 real-world questions from patient support groups, initial consultations, and follow-up visits, which were answered by GPT-4o and two human bariatric experts. An independent bariatric expert then blindly evaluated the responses for their overall quality, accuracy, and comprehensiveness. If needed, the responses were corrected, and the correction time was documented. Afterwards, bariatric patients (n = 189) across Germany rated the responses, assessing each one on its clarity, empathy, and completeness.

resultsThe LLM required significantly less time (2.7 vs. 87.2 s, p < 0.0001) and generated longer responses (607 vs. 262 characters, p = 0.001) than human experts. LLM-generated responses were rated significantly higher by patients in terms of clarity (4.8 vs. 4.6), completeness (4.5 vs. 3.4), and empathy (4.1 vs. 3.2, all p < 0.0001). In total, 64.9% of patients preferred LLM-generated responses, while 18.5% preferred physician responses. Notably, patients with a lower degree of education showed a stronger preference for LLM responses over physician responses.

conclusionLLMs could possibly act as an assistant for physicians and help improve their response efficiency while maintaining accuracy under physicians' oversight. This approach could optimize physician time management and enhance patient satisfaction in bariatric care communication.

Indexed as

Bariatric SurgeryLanguageObesity, MorbidPatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultCommunicationEmpathyFemaleGermanyHumansLarge Language ModelsMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesBariatric surgeryLLMObesityPatient-centered surveyPatient communicationPatient education

Identifiers

PMID40748576
PMCPMC12457575

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.