ArticleBMC pediatrics2026
Can large language models provide quality, reliable and readable information about sudden infant death syndrome?
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are artificial intelligence systems ready for pediatric surgical decision-making? A comparative evaluation of large language models versus pediatric surgeons.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Hidden and Under-Recognized Causes of Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy (SUDI): A Comprehensive Review of Autopsy Findings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study is to evaluate the quality, reliability and readability of the answers given by large language model (LLM) chatbots to frequently asked questions about sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
methodThree widely used LLM chatbots (ChatGPT 4, ChatGPT − 4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro) were asked 21 questions that parents frequently ask about SIDS. The answers were categorized into three different categories: all questions, general information and preventive questions. The content of the answers was evaluated by two experts. The global quality scale (GQS), the modified DISCERN and five different readability indices were used in the evaluation.
resultIn the study, the GQS score of ChatGPT 4 was found to be higher in responses to all questions about SIDS (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between the GQS scores of the responses given by the LLMs in the questions about general knowledge about SIDS and prevention (p > 0.05). When the modified DISCERN scores were evaluated in terms of reliability, Gemini 1.5 Pro had the highest score compared to other language models. There was a statistically significant difference in all questions and general knowledge question category (p > 0.05). In terms of readability, Gemini 1.5 Pro had a higher level of ease of reading than other LLM responses (p < 0.05).
conclusionLarge language models have the potential to provide accurate and comprehensive answers in providing parents with quality, reliable, and readable information about SIDS, they also have limitations.
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.