ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Utility of large language models as information tools for nursing care in gout: a comparative study of DeepSeek and ChatGPT.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, LLMs (LLMs) are now employed across diverse domains. In nursing, their capacity for high-quality content generation is especially promising, offering practical value for clinical management, research, and education. Among the leading Chinese models is DeepSeek-R1. Objective: This study aims to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT-4.0 as online information sources for nursing professionals seeking evidence-based care strategies for gout patients. Methods: We identified the 15 highest-priority questions on gout and related nursing strategies by surveying the research site, patients, and healthcare providers. These questions, posed in Chinese, were separately submitted to DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT-4.0. The Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) were used to evaluate the readability of their answers. The mDISCERN score was employed to compare the accuracy of their responses, and the age of statistical reference materials was assessed to compare their timeliness. GraphPad Prism 8.0.1 was used for all statistical analyses and figure preparation. Results: Readability and citation characteristics differed between the two LLMs. The FKGL of DeepSeek-R1 (13.04 ± 1.62) exceeded that of ChatGPT-4.0 (11.41 ± 1.74; Conclusion: Both DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT-4.0 drew chiefly from high-level evidence and produced accurate, professional answers; ChatGPT-4.0 rendered them in markedly clearer prose. While DeepSeek-R1 offered more up-to-date citations, several of its reference links were non-functional.
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.