ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2026
Examining Artificial Intelligence Chatbots' Responses in Providing Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Information for Young Adults: Qualitative Content Analysis.
Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 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.
- Assessment of vaccine information accuracy across large language models.Frontiers in public health · 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
backgroundThe growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots for seeking health-related information is concerning, as they were not originally developed for delivering medical guidance. The quality of AI chatbots' responses relies heavily on their training data and is often limited in medical contexts due to their lack of specific training data in medical literature. Findings on the quality of AI chatbot responses related to health are mixed. Some studies showed the quality surpassed physicians' responses, while others revealed occasional major errors and low readability. This study addresses a critical gap by examining the performance of various AI chatbots in a complex, misinformation-rich environment.
objectiveThis study examined AI chatbots' responses to human papillomavirus (HPV)-related questions by analyzing structure, linguistic features, information accuracy and currency, and vaccination stance.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative content analysis following the approach outlined by Schreier to examine 4 selected AI chatbots' (ChatGPT 4, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek V3, and Docus [General AI Doctor]) responses to HPV vaccine questions. These questions, simulated by young adults, were adapted from items on the Vaccine Conspiracy Beliefs Scale and Google Trends. The selection criteria for AI chatbots included popularity, accessibility, countries of origin, response update methods, and intended use. Two researchers, simulating a 22-year-old man or woman, collected 8 conversations between February 22 and 28, 2025. We used a deductive approach to develop initial code groups, then an inductive approach to generate codes. The responses were analyzed based on a comprehensive codebook, with codes examining response structure, linguistic features, information accuracy and currency, and vaccination stance. We also assessed readability using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Reading Ease Score.
resultsAll AI chatbots cited evidence-based sources from reputable health organizations. We found no fabricated information or inaccuracies in numerical data. For complex questions, all AI chatbots appropriately deferred to health care professionals' suggestions. All AI chatbots maintained a neutral or provaccine stance, corresponding with scientific consensus. The mean and range of response lengths varied [word count; ChatGPT: 436.4 (218-954); Claude: 188.0 (138-255); DeepSeek: 510.0 (325-735); and Docus: 159.4 (61-200)], as did readability [Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level; ChatGPT: 10.7 (6.0-14.9); Claude: 13.2 (7.7-17.8); DeepSeek: 11.3 (7.0-14.7); and Docus: 12.2 (8.9-15.5); and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score; ChatGPT: 46.8 (25.4-72.2); Claude: 32.5 (6.3-67.3); DeepSeek: 43.7 (22.8-67.4); and Docus: 40.5 (19.6-58.2)]. ChatGPT and Claude offered personalized responses, while DeepSeek and Docus lacked this. Occasionally, some responses included broken or irrelevant links and medical jargon.
conclusionsAmidst an online environment saturated with misinformation, AI chatbots have the potential to serve as an alternative source of accurate HPV-related information to conventional online platforms (websites and social media). Improvements in readability, personalization, and link accuracy are still needed. Furthermore, we recommend that users treat AI chatbots as complements, not replacements, to health care professionals' guidance on clinical settings.
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.