ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
AI-Driven Large Language Models in Health Consultations for HIV Patients.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility of AI-Enabled Chatbots for Pre-consultation in HIV Care in Northern Nigeria.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of the accuracy and reliability of ChatGPT-4o and Gemini in answering HIV-related questions.BMC infectious diseases · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study endeavors to conduct a comprehensive assessment on the performance of large language models (LLMs) in health consultation for individuals living with HIV, delve into their applicability across a diverse array of dimensions, and provide evidence-based support for clinical deployment. Patients and Methods: A 23-question multi-dimensional HIV-specific question bank was developed, covering fundamental knowledge, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and case analysis. Four advanced LLMs-ChatGPT-4o, Copilot, Gemini, and Claude-were tested using a multi-dimensional evaluation system assessing medical accuracy, comprehensiveness, understandability, reliability, and humanistic care (which encompasses elements such as individual needs attention, emotional support, and ethical considerations). A five-point Likert scale was employed, with three experts independently scoring. Statistical metrics (mean, standard deviation, standard error) were calculated, followed by consistency analysis, difference analysis, and post-hoc testing. Results: Claude obtained the most outstanding performance with regard to information comprehensiveness (mean score 4.333), understandability (mean score 3.797), and humanistic care (mean score 2.855); Copilot demonstrated proficiency in diagnostic questions (mean score 3.880); Gemini illustrated exceptional performance in case analysis (mean score 4.111). Based on the post-hoc analysis, Claude outperformed other models in thoroughness and humanistic care (P < 0.05). Copilot showed better performance than ChatGPT in understandability (P = 0.045), while Gemini performed significantly better than ChatGPT in case analysis (P < 0.001). It is important to note that performance varied across tasks, and humanistic care remained a consistent weak point across all models. Conclusion: The superiority of diverse models in specific tasks suggest that LLMs hold extensive application potential in the management of HIV patients. Nevertheless, their efficacy in the realm of humanistic care still needs improvement.
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.