ArticleDigital health
Using large language models to generate child-friendly education materials on myopia.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing large language models as assistive tools in selecting first trial lens parameters for orthokeratology.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the ability of large language models (LLMs) to produce patient education materials for myopic children and their parents. Methods: Thirty-five common myopia-related questions were used with two distinct prompts to produce responses aimed at adults (Prompt A) and children (Prompt B). Five ophthalmologists evaluated the responses using a 5-point Likert scale for correctness, completeness, conciseness, and potential harm. Readability was assessed via Flesch-Kincaid scores. The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney Results: ChatGPT 4o achieved the most positive ratings ("good" and above) in correctness (Prompt A: 91%; Prompt B: 83%) and conciseness (Prompt A: 79%; Prompt B: 63%), as well as the lowest negative ratings in potential harm ratings ("not at all" and "slightly," Prompt A: 99%; Prompt B: 97%) in the generation of educational materials for both adults and children (all Conclusion: Large language models, particularly ChatGPT 4o, hold potential for delivering effective patient education materials on myopia for both adult and pediatric populations. While generally effective, LLMs have limitations for complex medical queries, necessitating continued refinement for reliable clinical use.
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.