ArticleDigital health
Comparing large language models and human doctors in symptom-driven online medical consultations: A case study on trigeminal neuralgia.
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.
- Quality and reliability of YouTube videos on PET/CT radiation safety: a comparative analysis between human experts and large language models.Japanese journal of radiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the performance of generative AI tools, specifically Ernie Bot and ChatGPT, in supporting online medical consultations in China, focusing on their accuracy, safety, and empathy, and to assess their potential role in addressing the supply-demand gap in the healthcare system. Methods: We collected 233 trigeminal neuralgia consultations from a Chinese medical platform, including patient questions and doctor replies. Each question was input into ChatGPT-3.5 and Ernie Bot with role-specific prompts to generate large language models (LLMs) responses. Four blinded raters-two doctors and two patients-evaluated all responses using DISCERN and a modified PEMAT. Lexical, syntactic, and semantic analyses were conducted, with Spearman correlations assessing links between linguistic features and perceived quality. Results: While doctors led in reliability, Ernie Bot scored highest overall, especially in empathy and clarity, likely due to stylistic choices rather than true understanding. Despite their fluency, LLMs remain prone to factual errors. Text analysis showed distinct linguistic patterns, with several features significantly correlated with perceived quality. Conclusion: LLMs demonstrate strengths in perceived empathy and clarity but fall short in clinical accuracy and depth when addressing complex cases. Although they outperform doctors in communication-related aspects, their limitations in high-risk decision-making remain evident. As such, LLMs hold promise as adjunct tools for non-urgent consultations, but further refinement is needed to meet the standards of precise and personalized healthcare delivery.
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.