ArticleHealthcare informatics research2026
AI-driven Medical Care: Evaluation of Large Language Models in Generating Personalized Stroke Education Materials.
Article in Healthcare informatics research, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesLarge language models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable potential in healthcare communication. However, whether they can process complex, high-volume medical information, such as stroke-related content, remains insufficiently validated. This study aimed to evaluate the natural language processing capabilities of LLMs in handling such content and to develop an evaluation instrument.
methodsA survey compared educational materials generated by two LLMs (ChatGPT 4.0 and Claude 3) with neurologist-authored content on stroke. The materials were based on two clinical scenarios representing distinct stroke etiologies: cardioembolism and large-artery atherosclerosis. They were evaluated in terms of accuracy, legality, ethics, comprehensiveness, and information delivery. Scores for comprehensiveness and information delivery were compared according to participants' agreement with the use of LLMs in healthcare.
resultsChatGPT received the highest scores across all domains, except for legality in Scenario 2. In Scenario 1, the ranking for accuracy and summarization of clinical information was, from highest to lowest, ChatGPT, Claude, and the neurologist (η2 = 0.140, p < 0.001; η2 = 0.175, p < 0.001). The same hierarchy was observed in Scenario 2 for accuracy (η2 = 0.077, p < 0.001) and summarization (η2 = 0.194, p < 0.001). Participants who agreed with the use of LLMs in healthcare assigned higher scores for the comprehensiveness (Scenario 1, p = 0.005; Scenario 2, p = 0.007) and information delivery (Scenario 1, p = 0.003; Scenario 2, p = 0.026) of ChatGPT-generated materials than participants who did not agree.
conclusionsLLMs demonstrated adequate capability to convey complex content, such as stroke-related information, in an accessible and understandable manner for non-experts.
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.