Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42258421›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2026

Comparing the Accuracy of ChatGPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3, and Gemini 2.5 Flash in Answering Frequently Asked Questions About Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Quantitative Study.

Alvina Widhani, Suzy Maria, Aisha Putri Chairani, Nabila Yulianingrum Adella Visco, Muhammad Faiz Amirullah Nurhadi, Lutfi Airlangga Harjoprawito, Dwitya Elvira, Irwin Tedja, Yuniza Yuniza, Deasy Fetarayani and 4 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Alvina WidhaniDivision of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Diponegoro No. 71 Jakarta, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia, 62 622-1390-4546.ORCID 0000-0002-1848-6227
Suzy MariaDivision of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Diponegoro No. 71 Jakarta, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia, 62 622-1390-4546.ORCID 0000-0001-6951-1480
Aisha Putri ChairaniDivision of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Diponegoro No. 71 Jakarta, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia, 62 622-1390-4546.ORCID 0009-0000-3609-6348
Nabila Yulianingrum Adella ViscoDivision of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Diponegoro No. 71 Jakarta, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia, 62 622-1390-4546.ORCID 0009-0007-8310-3564
Muhammad Faiz Amirullah NurhadiDivision of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Diponegoro No. 71 Jakarta, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia, 62 622-1390-4546.ORCID 0009-0000-2322-1365
Lutfi Airlangga HarjoprawitoDivision of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Diponegoro No. 71 Jakarta, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia, 62 622-1390-4546.ORCID 0009-0007-0736-0171
Dwitya ElviraDivision of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Andalas University, Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0003-0227-7735
Irwin TedjaDivision of Rheumatology, Allergy-Immunology, Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Persahabatan Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0002-3308-1463
Yuniza YunizaDivision of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Sriwijaya University, Palembang, South Sumatra, Indonesia.ORCID 0009-0008-3398-0734
Deasy FetarayaniDivision of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0002-8733-6441
Sukamto KoesnoeDivision of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Diponegoro No. 71 Jakarta, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia, 62 622-1390-4546.ORCID 0000-0002-2839-2814
Bramantya WicaksanaDivision of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Diponegoro No. 71 Jakarta, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia, 62 622-1390-4546.ORCID 0009-0005-2718-211X
Anshari Saifuddin HasibuanDivision of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Diponegoro No. 71 Jakarta, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia, 62 622-1390-4546.ORCID 0000-0003-4331-2381
Evy YunihastutiDivision of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Diponegoro No. 71 Jakarta, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia, 62 622-1390-4546.ORCID 0000-0001-6650-0559

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a complex, fluctuating disease, creating a continuous need for reliable patient information. A prior study concluded that patients with SLE often turn to the internet, including artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, for information regarding SLE. The rise of AI chatbots as a primary information source presents a critical challenge regarding the accuracy of the information they provide. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the latest generation of AI chatbots (ChatGPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3, and Gemini 2.5 Flash) in answering frequently asked questions about SLE. Methods: Twenty-two frequently asked questions about SLE in Bahasa Indonesia (the Indonesian language) were posed to each chatbot. Responses were independently and blindly evaluated for accuracy by 5 clinical immunologists using a 4-point Likert scale. Readability was assessed using the Flesch reading ease score formula. Statistical comparisons for accuracy and readability were performed using repeated-measures ANOVA or the Friedman test, followed by the Bonferroni test for pairwise comparisons. The Spearman ρ was used to evaluate correlations among accuracy, readability, and word count. Results: Gemini 2.5 Flash demonstrated the highest accuracy, with a mean score of 1.25 (SD 0.53), significantly outperforming ChatGPT-4o (mean 1.71, SD 0.61; P<.001). Gemini 2.5 Flash significantly outperformed ChatGPT-4o in 2 evaluated domains. The interreliability analysis revealed a statistically significant level of agreement among the 5 evaluators across all responses (Kendall W=0.389; P<.001). Readability for all 3 chatbots was low (median Flesch reading ease score 42.22-46.66). Gemini 2.5 Flash produced the longest responses (8509 total words), followed by DeepSeek-V3 (5410 words) and ChatGPT-4o (3632 words). A significant negative correlation was found between word count and lower accuracy (ρ=-0.401; P=.001). Conclusions: Our study found that ChatGPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3, and Gemini 2.5 Flash provided overall satisfactory responses to SLE-related questions. The highest accuracy was demonstrated by Gemini 2.5 Flash; however, the absolute differences in scores among the 3 AI chatbots were relatively small. All 3 AI chatbots demonstrated low readability, which may limit accessibility for patient use. This finding highlights a critical "blind spot" in which clinical accuracy, as rated by experts, does not equate to patient accessibility. Thus, further research is required to develop more comprehensive evaluation frameworks incorporating safety, factuality, and calibration of AI chatbots across different medical fields and topics.

Indexed as

Lupus Erythematosus, SystemicHumansIndonesiaSurveys and QuestionnairesAIartificial intelligencechatbotChatGPTDeepSeekGeminiSLEsystemic lupus erythematosus

Identifiers

PMID42258421
PMCPMC13245641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.