ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Large Language Model-Generated Patient Instructions for Prescriptions in Primary Health Care: Preclinical Algorithm Validation.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe application of generative artificial intelligence to simplify medication use instructions has the potential to enhance people's health by improving treatment adherence.
objectiveWe evaluated the performance of large language models (LLMs) in generating medication usage instructions to complement prescriptions in primary health care.
methodsThis randomized, blinded experimental preclinical study used prescription-inducing scenarios, assigned to 62 health care professionals, to validate instructions generated by LLMs during electronic prescriptions. The instructions were generated by ChatGPT-4.0 (OpenAI), Llama3.1-8B (Meta), and Llama3.1-8B-RAG (Meta) using retrieval-augmented generation based on patient information leaflets. Performance metrics assessed adequacy, completeness, clarity, language simplification, usefulness, and errors in the generated instructions, with scores to analyze overall and individual metrics.
resultsThe 3 models yielded high overall scores for producing qualified instructions (ChatGPT-4.0: median 88.4, IQR 22.8; Llama3.1-8B: median 66.5, IQR 50.9; Llama3.1-8B-RAG: median 79.9, IQR 34.4; Kruskal-Wallis test P=.003). Llama3.1-8B-RAG received evaluations with similar overall scores to ChatGPT-4.0 (post hoc test, P=.05) and similar to Llama3.1-8B (post hoc test, P=.44). ChatGPT-4.0 outperformed Llama3.1-8B (Bonferroni test, P<.001). Regarding specific domains, Llama3.1-8B-RAG received scores equivalent to those of ChatGPT-4.0 for adequacy (mean 6.24, SD 2.3 vs mean 6.82, SD 2.1; post hoc test, P=.54); completeness (mean 5.94, SD 2.2 vs 6.55, SD 1.9; post hoc test P=.38), clarity (mean 5.77, SD 2.4 vs mean 6.68, SD 1.9; post hoc test P=.09), and usefulness (mean 5.42, SD 2.4 vs mean 5.96, SD 2.2; post hoc test P=.63). ChatGPT-4.0 received higher scores in the language simplification criterion than Llama3.1-8B-RAG (mean 7.05, SD 1.5 vs mean 5.44, SD 2.6; post hoc test P<.001). Interrater variability in assigning scores ranged from 4.2% (n=3) to 85.8% (n=6) among primary health care professionals. Instructions leading to incorrect use of the medication had similar frequency among the models(ChatGPT-4.0: n=15, 22.7%; Llama3.1-8B: n=19, 22.8%; Llama3.1-8B-RAG: n=19, 22.8%; chi-square test P=.71). The frequencies of hallucination were similar (ChatGPT-4.0: n=7, 10.6%; Llama3.1-8B: n=9, 13.6%; Llama3.1-8B-RAG: n=6, 9.1%; chi-square test P=.67).
conclusionsThe open-source LLM enhanced with external information presented similar performance to the closed-source model, except for ChatGPT4.0, which was superior in language simplification of messages. LLM generation demonstrated potential for instructing patients on medication use. Nonetheless, the introduction of this innovation into the electronic prescribing workflow demands prescriber validation for human oversight of the technology and requires a strategy for LLM performance governance. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.12688/verixiv.1359.1.
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.