ArticleJournal of oral & facial pain and headache2026
Benchmark evaluation of large language models for clinical decision support in headache management.
Article in Journal of oral & facial pain and headache, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHeadache disorders are a major cause of disability worldwide. In routine practice, diagnosis and guideline-based management are difficult because symptoms can overlap between primary and secondary headaches, and clinicians must combine clinical, imaging, and pathological information. Large language models (LLMs) are being proposed to assist clinical reasoning, but their performance on headache cases and their sensitivity to prompting have not been systematically assessed.
methodsWe evaluated seven leading LLMs using 13 headache cases from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). We compared two prompting strategies: ask-in-sequence (AS) and ask-at-once (AO). Using a 5-point Likert rubric, three headache specialists independently scored six dimensions: rationality of diagnostic thinking, comprehensiveness of differential diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy, completeness of pathological diagnosis, clinical management, and supplementary value. Readability was measured with Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). We analyzed differences across models, prompting strategies, and cases.
resultsDiagnostic accuracy differed by model: in the AS strategy, ChatGPT-4o outperformed Grok-3. Supplementary value also varied: in AS, Grok-3 outperformed ChatGPT-5 and Hunyuan-T1; in AO, DeepSeek-R1 outperformed ChatGPT-5. Overall, supplementary value was generally higher with AS, while strategy-related differences in diagnostic accuracy were observed only for Grok-3. Performance also depended on the case; C8 and C11 consistently received very low scores, suggesting difficulty integrating psychiatric or warning signs with pathological findings. Readability differed significantly: Gemini 2.5 Pro had the highest FRE (best readability) across strategies, and AS outputs generally had higher FRE. Within AS, ChatGPT-4o had the highest FKGL (worst readability). No significant model differences were found for the other four clinical dimensions.
conclusionsThis study provides a structured, reproducible evaluation of LLMs on headache case analysis. While some models improved supplementary value, diagnostic accuracy, or readability, overall clinical accuracy remains below expert performance and is not sufficient for unsupervised clinical use.
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.