ArticleJournal of clinical research in pediatric endocrinology2026
A Comparative Assessment of Large Language Models in Congenital Hypothyroidism: Reliability, Quality and Readability
Article in Journal of clinical research in pediatric endocrinology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To comparatively evaluate the reliability, quality, and readability of responses generated by widely used large language model (LLM)-based chatbots to congenital hypothyroidism (CH)-related patient questions. Methods: Forty frequently asked questions (FAQs) about CH, derived from clinician-reviewed patient education resources, were submitted under standardized conditions (December 2025) to Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer-4 (ChatGPT-4), ChatGPT-5.2, Gemini, and Copilot. The modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) instrument was used to assess reliability, whereas the Global Quality Score (GQS) was used to evaluate quality. Readability was evaluated using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). Scores were compared using Friedman tests with Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc analyses. Results: Median mDISCERN scores were 5.0 for ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-5.2, and Gemini, and 4.0 for Copilot. Median GQS scores were 5.0 for ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-5.2, and Gemini, and 4.0 for Copilot. Differences among models were significant for both mDISCERN and GQS (p<0.001), with ChatGPT-5.2 outperforming others in key pairwise comparisons. Readability differed significantly across all indices (all p<0.001). ChatGPT-5.2 demonstrated the highest FRE and lowest FKGL, whereas Gemini produced the most complex text. However, all models exceeded the recommended sixth-grade reading level. Conclusion: LLM-based chatbots produced generally moderate-to-high quality CH information, but readability remains suboptimal for patient education. ChatGPT-5.2 showed the best overall performance. LLM outputs may support patient information needs but should complement, not replace, clinician-provided counseling.
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.