ReviewDigital health
Exploring evaluation measures of large language models for family caregiver use: A scoping review.
Review in Digital health. 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.
- Evaluation of large language model-generated information in diabetes health patient education: a scoping review.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Large language models have a huge positive impact on various disciplines, including healthcare. As family caregivers are an essential part of the healthcare system, they need support and can benefit from the technology. However, there is no consensus on reliable and valid measures to evaluate large language models. Objective: This study aims to review the literature on the evaluation measures of large language models for caregivers. Methods: We conducted a scoping review guided by Arksey and O'Malley methodology and the PRISMA-ScR checklist. A literature search on PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, from 2018 through July 2024, was carried out. An additional rapid review was conducted for the recent literature update from July 2024 through November 2025. Results: All 10 final publications that met the inclusion criteria out of 1812 focused on ChatGPT, whereas three of them also addressed other large language models, such as Google Bard and Bing AI. The most commonly assessed core conceptual components of evaluation measures were accuracy, reliability, readability, and comprehensiveness. Overall, the included studies reported that large language models' responses were somewhat accurate and reliable and mixed results in readability and comprehensiveness. The final 14 publications from a rapid review offered additional evidence on ChatGPT-centrism. Conclusions: This review provides a comprehensive overview of the measures for evaluating large language models and highlights the need for their improvement using reliable and valid measures. The findings guide the direction of future research and practice to maximize the benefits through continuous quality improvement.
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.