ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluating large language model`s performance in answering principles of health course questions.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Article
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
Introduction The literature highlights the considerable potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), in advancing health promotion among individuals. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of several LLMs in responding to questions from the Principles of Health course. This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2025. The LLMs evaluated included ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 2.5, Copilot 2025, and Perplexity 2.250619.0. These LLMs were utilized to respond to the study questionnaire pertaining to the Principles of Health course. To analyze and compare the performance of the LLMs in answering the research questions, a confusion matrix was constructed. Accordingly, four key metrics were calculated: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), in addition to overall accuracy. The LLMs included in the study demonstrated perfect sensitivity, each achieving a value of 1. Regarding specificity, ChatGPT and Perplexity attained the highest scores of 0.8, while Gemini and Copilot exhibited comparatively lower specificity values of 0.66 and 0.6, respectively. Furthermore, ChatGPT and Perplexity recorded the highest accuracy rates of 0.93, surpassing Gemini and Copilot, both of which achieved an accuracy of 0.86. The findings provided a detailed assessment of the performance of the LLMs. Results indicated that the performance of LLMs generally declined as the complexity, length, and verbosity of questionnaire items increased. Additionally, certain LLMs, such as Copilot, demonstrated particular difficulty when responding to quantitative questions involving numerical data. Further research is recommended to investigate these observations more comprehensively.
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.