ArticleObesity surgery2025
Comparative Analysis of Large Language Model and Physician-Generated Responses in Bariatric Patient Inquiries: Assessing the Accuracy and Patient Satisfaction.
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.
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.
- Performance of large language models as a source of clinical information on bacteriophage therapy.Npj viruses · 2026Article
- Accuracy and Knowledge Base Evaluation of ChatGPT-4o, Gemini-2.0-Flash, and DeepSeek-V3 in Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: an Expert-Rated Blinded Study.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- IFSO Survey: Use of Large Language Models (LLMs) by Metabolic Bariatric Surgeons and Integrated Health Professionals.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.