ArticleMediterranean journal of rheumatology2025
What Large Language Models offer about Familial Mediterranean Fever: An Analysis of Quality, Readability, Completeness, and Accuracy.
Article in Mediterranean journal of rheumatology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality, completeness, accuracy, and readability of Large Language Models (LLM) responses to 25 popular questions about Familial Mediterranean Fever (FMF). Methods: The readability of the responses of LLMs (ChatGPT-4, Copilot, Gemini) was assessed by Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade (FKG). The Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool was used to assess the quality. To assess the completeness and accuracy of responses, 3-point and 5-point Likert scales were used, respectively. Results: The mean FRES scores of LLMs ranged between 29.80 and 35.66. The FKG scores ranged between 12.36 and 13.72. The mean accuracy scores of LLMs ranged between 4.88 and 4.96. No significant difference was found between the LLM groups regarding accuracy and readability scores (p>0.05). The mean completeness scores of LLMs ranged between 2.36 and 2.84. ChatGPT-4 was the leading LLM in completeness scores according to the Likert scale, and the difference between LLM groups was statistically significant (p=0.006). Gemini performed better in the quality analysis with the EQIP tool, and there was a statistically significant difference between the LLM groups (p<0.001). Conclusion: In this study, LLMs performed acceptably in accuracy and completeness. However, there are serious concerns about their readability and quality. To improve health information, LLM developers should include more diverse data sources in the training sets of the models. Moreover, the ability of LLMs to provide readability features that are adaptable to the level of education could be an important innovation in this field.
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.