ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Evaluation of large language models in generating and optimizing educational materials for neonatal home oxygen therapy.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Neonatal Home Oxygen Therapy (NHOT) is a critical treatment for premature infants with Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia (BPD). However, existing health education materials are generally difficult to read, particularly for grandparent caregivers with lower educational backgrounds. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the capacity of six major Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate and optimize NHOT health education materials. Methods: Six LLMs were included: ChatGPT-5.1, Claude 4.5 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Grok-4.1, Qwen-3-Max, and DeepSeek-V3.2. Each model generated 20 texts under three prompting strategies-baseline (Prompt A), simplification (Prompt B), and rewriting (Prompt C)-yielding 360 texts in total. Twenty WeChat public health articles served as the human-authored baseline. Subjective evaluation employed C-DISCERN, C-PEMAT (understandability and actionability), and a medical accuracy Likert scale, supplemented by objective linguistic analysis using the Alpha Readability Chinese (ARC) tool. Results: All models demonstrated superior medical accuracy compared to the human baseline (Likert median 1.0, against 2.0 for the original articles). Under baseline conditions, Qwen achieved the highest content quality (C-DISCERN median 57.0), while Claude attained perfect actionability scores. The simplification prompt (Prompt B) significantly reduced C-DISCERN scores across all models (all Conclusion: LLMs demonstrate significant potential for optimizing existing health education materials, performing more reliably in rewriting mode than in
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.