ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Comparative evaluation of viral hepatitis question responses: ChatGPT-4.5 outperforms three established models.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundViral hepatitis is a major global public health problem that affects millions of people; therefore, accurate and accessible information is essential for both the general public and non-specialist healthcare providers to correctly understand, prevent, and manage the disease. This study evaluated four large language models (LLMs)-Gemini-2.0, Claude-3.5-sonnet, ChatGPT-4.5, and ChatGPT-4-and compared their responses to viral hepatitis-related questions to assess differences in performance across models.
methodsThis comparative evaluation study, conducted at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital from March to April 2025, examined 52 questions pertaining to viral hepatitis. Four large language models were assessed based on their responses to these 52 questions which encompassed four domains: concepts, risk factors, diagnosis, and prevention and treatment. Initial evaluation used a three-point scale of good, borderline, and poor. Further evaluation criteria included relevance, comprehensiveness, accuracy, safety, and readability, with each response scored on a scale of 1 to 5.
resultsChatGPT-4.5 achieved the highest performance, with 89.1% of its responses rated as good, significantly outperforming Claude-3.5-sonnet (71.15% good), Gemini-2.0 (62.82% good), and ChatGPT-4 (50.64% good). Statistical analysis confirmed superior performance of ChatGPT-4.5 in all evaluated dimensions. Consistently, ChatGPT-4.5 scored the highest across all five criteria: relevance, comprehensiveness, accuracy, safety, and readability.
conclusionsChatGPT-4.5 demonstrates superior performance in addressing viral hepatitis queries compared to other three models. Its high reliability makes it a valuable tool for patients and medical professionals not specializing in viral hepatitis by improving information accessibility.
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.