ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Comparative study on the efficacy of large language models (LLMs) in health management for patients with urological and andrological diseases: a multidimensional quality evaluation and applicability analysis.
Article in World journal of urology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to evaluate the efficacy of large language models (LLMs) in health management for urological and andrological conditions by comparing two Chinese LLMs: DeepSeek and Kimi.
methodsThe responses of DeepSeek and Kimi to 30 questions on six urological and andrological diseases were quantitatively assessed using quality assessment tools, expert assessments, and readability metrics.
resultsIn quality assessments, DeepSeek outperformed Kimi in only two instances: responses to "What are the surgical options for kidney stones?" (PEMAT-AI: P = 0.012; DISCERN-AI: P = 0.024) and "What are the treatment modalities for bladder cancer?" (PEMAT-AI and DISCERN-AI: P < 0.001). Expert assessments revealed that DeepSeek demonstrated superior accuracy and safety compared to Kimi only in addressing "Dietary considerations for kidney stone patients" (accuracy: P < 0.001; safety: P = 0.02). No statistically significant differences were found in quality assessments or expert assessments between the models for disease-specific categories. However, Kimi outperformed DeepSeek in readability evaluations.
conclusionBoth DeepSeek and Kimi exhibit substantial efficacy and clinical applicability in managing urological and andrological diseases. To enhance their practical use, Kimi requires improvements in accuracy and safety, while DeepSeek should focus on improving readability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42142252What 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.