ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Evaluation of large language model-generated medical information on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. 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.
- AI-generated patient information leaflets for oral anticoagulants: quality, usability, readability, and reproducibility compared with FDA-referenced materials.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) information from AI-powered large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT-4 and Gemini 1.5 Pro is unexplored for quality, reliability, readability, and concordance with clinical guidelines. Research question: What is the quality, reliability, readability, and concordance to clinical guidelines of LLMs in medical and clinically IPF-related content? Study design and methods: ChatGPT-4 and Gemini 1.5 Pro responses to 23 ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT IPF guidelines questions were compared. Six independent raters evaluated responses for quality (DISCERN), reliability (JAMA Benchmark Criteria), readability (Flesch-Kincaid), and guideline concordance (0-4). Descriptive analysis, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and effect sizes (r) were calculated. Statistical significance was set at Results: According to JAMA Benchmark, ChatGPT-4 and Gemini 1.5 Pro provided partially reliable responses; however, readability evaluations showed that both models were difficult to understand. The Gemini 1.5 Pro provided significantly better treatment information (DISCERN score: 56 versus 43, Interpretation: Both models gave useful medical insights, but their reliability is limited. Gemini 1.5 Pro gave greater quality information than ChatGPT-4 and was more compliant with worldwide IPF guidelines. Readability analyses found that AI-generated medical information was difficult to understand, stressing the need to refine it. What is already known on this topic: Recent advancements in AI, especially large language models (LLMs) powered by natural language processing (NLP), have revolutionized the way medical information is retrieved and utilized. What this study adds: This study highlights the potential and limitations of ChatGPT-4 and Gemini 1.5 Pro in generating medical information on IPF. They provided partially reliable information in their responses; however, Gemini 1.5 Pro demonstrated superior quality in treatment-related content and greater concordance with clinical guidelines. Nevertheless, neither model provided answers in full concordance with established clinical guidelines, and their readability remained a major challenge. How this study might affect research practice or policy: These findings highlight the need for AI model refinement as LLMs evolve as healthcare reference tools to help doctors and patients make evidence-based decisions.
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.