ArticleJournal of translational medicine2026
AI in respiratory care: findings from the GOLD report.
Article in Journal of translational 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) requires personalised, guideline-based management according to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report. As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for medical guidance, their adherence to updated clinical recommendations requires systematic evaluation. This study assessed and compared ChatGPT-5, DeepSeek-V3.2, Gemini 3, Grok, Manus, and Kimi K1.5 in delivering 2025 GOLD-consistent responses, focusing on accuracy, consistency, and clinical reasoning.
methodsA standardised dataset of 90 questions derived from the 2025 GOLD Report was categorised into YES/NO, multiple-choice, and open-ended formats. During a 7-day longitudinal study in December 2025, all questions were administered daily across the six platforms, generating 3,780 responses. Performance was evaluated against the 2025 GOLD Report, and open-ended responses were assessed for quality and clinical comprehensiveness.
resultsPerformance was assessed across two separate primary outcomes. For binary accuracy (YES/NO and MCQ questions), Kimi K1.5 achieved the highest rate (97.1%; 408/420; 95% CI, 95.1-98.4%), and Gemini 3 the lowest (89.5%; 376/420; 95% CI, 86.2-92.1%). For open-ended clinical reasoning quality, Gemini 3 achieved the highest weighted score (96.5%; 95% CI, 93.3-98.4%) and DeepSeek-V3.2 the lowest (91.8%; 95% CI, 87.4-94.9%), reflecting a performance inversion between the two outcome domains. All platforms exhibited statistical stability across the seven-day study period (p > 0.05 for all models).
conclusionLarge language models showed high but format-dependent adherence to the 2025 GOLD COPD guidelines, with clear divergence between binary accuracy and open-ended reasoning. While they may serve as supplementary tools under expert supervision, generalization to other settings requires further validation. Residual performance gaps persisted across both domains, with binary error rates ranging from 2.9% (Kimi K1.5) to 10.5% (Gemini 3), and open-ended weighted-score deficits ranging from 3.5% (Gemini 3) to 8.2% (DeepSeek-V3.2).
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.