ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Performance evaluation of mainstream large language models in autoimmune hepatitis patient education: a comparative study of readability, quality, and reliability.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of Large Language Models in Chronic Disease Care: Mixed Methods Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Patient education for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder using large language models: combining expert assessment and real-world patient interaction.Frontiers in physiology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is a chronic immune-mediated liver disease that requires long-term management, in which effective patient education plays a critical role. With the rapid development of large language models (LLMs), AI-generated health information is increasingly accessed by patients; however, the readability, quality, and educational suitability of LLM-generated AIH-related content remain insufficiently evaluated. Methods: Five widely used LLMs-ChatGPT, Doubao, DeepSeek, Wenxin Yiyan, and Tongyi Qianwen-were assessed based on their responses to 20 frequently asked AIH patient education questions covering five thematic categories. Text readability was evaluated using multiple indices, including the Automated Readability Index, Flesch Reading Ease Score, Gunning Fog Index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Coleman-Liau Index, SMOG, and Linsear Write formula. Information quality and educational suitability were assessed using the Global Quality Score (GQS) and the Chinese version of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (C-PEMAT). Clinical Intent Alignment (CIA) was used to evaluate the coverage of guideline-defined medical key points based on the 2025 EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines. Inter-rater reliability was analyzed using Cohen's kappa, and comparative and correlation analyses were performed. Results: Significant differences were observed among the LLMs in readability, information quality, and educational suitability (all Conclusion: Substantial variability exists among LLMs in generating AIH patient education materials. Model selection critically influences information quality and educational suitability, whereas content theme primarily affects linguistic complexity. Although most models produced moderate-to-good quality information, relatively high readability levels suggest that further simplification may be needed for general patient populations. A multidimensional evaluation framework integrating readability, quality, educational suitability, and clinical intent alignment is essential for the responsible use of LLMs in AIH patient education.
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.