ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2026
Do Large Language Models Perform Equally Across Languages? A Comparison of Responses to Frequently Asked Questions in Anesthesiology.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND With the increasing use of large language model (LLM) chatbots in healthcare, evaluating their ability to provide reliable and understandable information in multiple languages is critical, particularly in fields such as anesthesia, where patient education is essential. The study primarily aimed to compare the quality of ChatGPT 4.0's and DeepSeek V3's English responses, with secondary aims to evaluate content and communication differences between English and Turkish responses. MATERIAL AND METHODS Anesthesiologists proficient in both languages were recruited as experts. Ten frequently asked questions in anesthesia were selected and translated for evaluation. Responses from ChatGPT 4.0 and DeepSeek V3 in both English and Turkish were assessed for overall quality and content quality (accuracy, comprehensiveness, and safety) and communication quality (understanding, empathy/tone, and ethics), and Turkish and English responses were compared by the evaluators. RESULTS Eleven experts evaluated the responses. English responses of ChatGPT 4.0 were superior to the English responses of DeepSeek V3 in overall (P<0.001). English responses of ChatGPT 4.0 were superior to the Turkish responses in the terms of overall, content, and communication quality (P<0.001 each) and English responses of DeepSeek V3 were superior to the Turkish responses in the terms of overall (P<0.001), content (P<0.001) and communication (P=0.001) quality. CONCLUSIONS ChatGPT 4.0 performed better than DeepSeek V3 in the English language in terms of overall quality of responses to 10 frequently asked questions in the field of anesthesia and the English responses provided by ChatGPT 4.0 and DeepSeek V3 outperformed the Turkish responses.
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.