Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2026
Evaluating and Validating Large Language Models for Health Education on Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: 2-Phase Study With Expert Ratings and a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. 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.
- Clinical Evaluation of an AI-Assisted Decision Support System for General Anesthesia Management Based on Data From 6 Centers: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDevelopmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is a common pediatric orthopedic disease, and health education is vital to disease management and rehabilitation. The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has provided new opportunities for health education. However, the effectiveness and applicability of LLMs in education with DDH have not been systematically evaluated.
objectiveThis study conducted an integrated 2-phase evaluation to assess the quality and educational effectiveness of LLM-generated educational materials.
methodsThis study comprised 2 phases. Based on Bloom's taxonomy, a 16-item DDH question bank was created through literature analysis and collaboration. Four LLMs (ChatGPT-4 [OpenAI], DeepSeek-V3, Gemini 2.0 Flash [Google], and Copilot [Microsoft Corp]) were questioned using standardized prompts. All responses were independently evaluated by 5 pediatric orthopedic experts using 5-point Likert measures of accuracy, fluency, and richness, the scales of Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials, and DISCERN. The readability was measured by a formula. The data were examined using Kruskal-Wallis tests, ANOVA, and post hoc comparisons. In phase 2, an assessor-blinded, 2-arm pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted. A total of 127 caregivers were randomized into an LLM-assisted education group or a web search control group. The intervention included structured LLM training, supervised practice, and 2 weeks of reinforcement training. Measured at baseline, postintervention, and 2 weeks following, the outcomes were eHealth literacy (primary), DDH knowledge, health risk perception, perceived usefulness, information self-efficacy, and health information-seeking behavior. Cohen d effect sizes and linear mixed-effects models were used in an intention-to-treat manner.
resultsThere were significant differences between the 4 LLMs concerning accuracy, richness, fluency, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials Understandability, and DISCERN (P<.05). ChatGPT-4 (median 63.67, IQR 63.67-64.67) and DeepSeek-V3 (median 63.67, IQR 63.33-64.67) generate more accurate text than Copilot (median 59.00, IQR 58.67-59.67). DeepSeek-V3 (median 64.00, IQR 64.00-64.00) was language richer than Copilot (median 52.33, IQR 51.33-52.67). Gemini 2.0 Flash (median 72.67, IQR 72.33-73.00) was more fluent than Copilot (median 65.67, IQR 63.33-65.67). In phase 2, the intervention group showed higher eHealth literacy at T1 (33.62, 95% CI 32.76-34.49; d=0.20, 95% CI 0.13-0.56) and T2 (33.27, 95% CI 32.38-34.17; d=0.36, 95% CI 0.01-0.80), greater DDH knowledge at T1 (7.87, 95% CI 7.48-8.25, d=0.71, 95% CI 0.33-1.11) and T2 (7.12, 95% CI 6.72-7.51; d=0.54, 95% CI 0.17-0.96), and slight improvements in health risk prediction and perceived usefulness.
conclusionsMainstream LLMs demonstrate varying capacities in generating educational content for DDH. They generated DDH caregiver education materials that were associated with modest improvements in eHealth literacy and knowledge. Although LLMs can address general informational needs, they cannot completely substitute clinical evaluation. Future research should focus on optimizing plain language, refining dialogue design, and enhancing audience personalization to improve the quality of LLMs' materials.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2500108410; https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=271987.
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.