ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Comparative analysis of Chinese large language model performance on atrial fibrillation questions.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe first seven Chinese Large language models (LLMs) were launched to the public on August 31st,2023.However, the extent to which Chinese LLMs can assist atrial fibrillation༈AF༉patients remains unknown. We sought to assess the Chinese LLMs performance of providing responses to AF patient questions.
methodThis cross-sectional study compared seven Chinese LLM chatbots including ABAB, Baichuan, Chatglm, Doubao, Ernie bot, Sensechat and ZidongTaichu. First, cardiologists compiled a list of frequently asked questions by patients with AF. Responses from LLMs were collected. We developed a scoring system known as SCECCE, which consists of 6 aspects including safety, correctness, error, completeness, conciseness and elaboration. Each response was assessed by an expert committee according to SCECCE scoring system.
resultA total of 231 responses were obtained. Overall, the median SCECCE score was 10[IQR, 7–10] with a mean(SD) score of 8.6(2.0). No significant statistical differences were observed in SCECCE scores among seven LLMs(p = 0.08). The maximum total SCECCE score was 330 points. Ernie bot attained the highest total score of 299 points. Doubao provided safe responses to 97% of the questions. In terms of correctness and error, the overall comparison of each group showed no statistically significant difference. Ernie bot exhibited the best performance with an accuracy rate of 87.9%.
conclusionOur findings from this preliminary study suggested that certain Chinese LLMs could generate accurate and comprehensive answers to specific patient questions on atrial fibrillation. Nevertheless, this performance does not warrant clinical application, with safety being a foremost concern among the considerable challenges that lie ahead.
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.