ArticleJournal of paediatrics and child health2026
The Role of Large Language Models in Identifying and Correcting Paediatric Health Misinformation for Parents: A Paediatric Nursing Perspective.
Article in Journal of paediatrics and child health, 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.
- Are artificial intelligence systems ready for pediatric surgical decision-making? A comparative evaluation of large language models versus pediatric surgeons.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs parents increasingly seek information about child health on digital platforms, the risk of misinformation has also risen.
aimsThis study aimed to evaluate the performance of large language models (LLMs) in identifying, correcting and generating guideline-adherent, evidence-based responses to paediatric misinformation.
methodTwenty common paediatric misinformation statements across nine thematic areas were identified based on literature review and expert opinion. These statements were presented to four different LLMs (ChatGPT, Gemini Advanced, Claude, Microsoft Copilot) with three repetitions each. The generated responses were evaluated by one physician and two nurses in terms of accuracy, guideline adherence, explanation quality and risk.
resultsChatGPT and Gemini demonstrated the highest and most consistent performance in accuracy and guideline adherence. Claude showed some deficiencies in certain explanations, while Copilot exhibited lower performance in guideline adherence and explanation depth compared to the other models. Risk scores were low across all models, and no hazardous content was observed. Furthermore, the models' abilities to correct misinformation varied in terms of guideline-compliant explanations and risk communication.
conclusionWithin the scope of the evaluated paediatric misinformation statements and current model versions, LLMs may provide conditionally safe and guideline-aligned information for parents. However, professional oversight and adherence to evidence-based paediatric guidelines remain essential. This study systematically highlighted the potential applications and limitations of LLMs in digital health safety and paediatric 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.