ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Benchmarking the readability, quality, and educational suitability of large language models in communicating pertussis.
Article in Frontiers in public 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pertussis (whooping cough) is a highly contagious respiratory infection that continues to cause substantial morbidity and mortality, particularly among infants, and has re-emerged globally among adolescents and adults. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for health communication and science popularization; however, evidence regarding their readability, quality, and educational suitability for disease-specific patient education remains limited. To date, no systematic evaluation has focused on LLM-generated pertussis health education materials. Objective: This study aimed to systematically evaluate and compare the performance of five mainstream LLMs in generating pertussis-related science popularization content, with particular attention to readability, informational quality, and educational suitability. Methods: A cross-sectional simulation study was conducted using 20 frequently asked pertussis-related questions covering five domains: basic knowledge, symptom presentation, diagnostic methods, treatment and management, and prevention and prognosis. On October 28, 2025, all questions were identically input into five publicly accessible LLMs. Text readability was assessed using seven classical indices. Two independent pharmacists performed blinded evaluations using the Chinese version of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for print materials (C-PEMAT-P) and the Global Quality Score (GQS). Additionally, two independent clinical experts assessed the factual accuracy and guideline concordance of each LLM-generated response against the Chinese Pertussis Diagnosis and Treatment Guidelines (2024) using a 4-point scale. Inter-rater agreement was evaluated using Cohen's kappa coefficient. Results: ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Doubao achieved significantly higher C-PEMAT and GQS scores than Wenxin Yiyan and Gemini ( Conclusion: Mainstream LLMs show preliminary capability in generating pertussis-related health education materials, although substantial inter-model variability persists. Domain-specific patient education assessment tools better capture perceived informational quality than generic readability metrics. These findings support the cautious, assistive use of LLMs in health communication within a human-AI collaborative framework.
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.