ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Evaluation of large language models for nursing support in maternal venous thromboembolism care.
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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and nursing plays a central role in prevention, patient education, and follow-up. Large language models (LLMs) have attracted increasing attention in healthcare; however, their comparative performance in maternal VTE nursing contexts remains insufficiently explored. Methods: Five representative LLMs-DeepSeek, GPT-4.1, Claude 3.7, Huatuo, and Kimi-were evaluated across six clinical domains (etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognostic assessment, home care, prevention) and five performance dimensions (accuracy, comprehensibility, logical coherence, reliability, safety). An expert-informed Delphi framework comprising 41 items guided the evaluation. Three nursing experts independently rated each model's responses, and inter-rater reliability was assessed using Fleiss's Kappa. Results: GPT-4.1, Claude 3.7, and DeepSeek demonstrated superior overall performance, particularly in patient education, individualized care planning, and preventive guidance. Huatuo and Kimi showed limitations in treatment and prognostic reasoning. Inter-rater reliability was excellent (Kappa = 0.892). Conclusion: The findings highlight relative strengths and limitations of different LLMs across nursing-relevant domains in maternal VTE care. While certain models performed better in educational and supportive contexts, the current study does not assess clinical adequacy or readiness for real-world nursing deployment. Future research incorporating patient perspectives and real-world validation is needed to inform the safe and appropriate integration of LLMs into nursing practice.
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.