Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41726084›Full record

ReviewDigital health

Exploring evaluation measures of large language models for family caregiver use: A scoping review.

Soojeong Han, Hannah Cho, Yong K Choi, Gregory L Alexander

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Soojeong HanSchool of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7130-818X
Hannah ChoSchool of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7504-5934
Yong K ChoiSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7882-4358
Gregory L AlexanderSchool of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4500-8797

Funding

Individualized Care for At Risk Older AdultsT32NR009356 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Lauren M Massimo, MARY D NAYLOR · 2007 to 2026
$7.8M
NINR NIH HHS T32 NR009356
6 · The paper itself

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

family caregivergenerative artificial intelligencehealth informaticsLarge language modelscoping review

Identifiers

PMID41726084
PMCPMC12921177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.