ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Performance comparison of large language models for medication counseling in people living with HIV.
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. 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
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the comprehensive performance of five large language models (LLMs), namely ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Doubao, Kimi, and Qwen, in addressing medication consultation inquiries for people living with HIV (PLWH) in a Chinese-language context, thereby providing evidence for their clinical application and further model optimization. Methods: A total of 55 real-world medication consultation questions covering mainstream antiretroviral drugs for PLWH were screened and classified from Beijing Youan Hospital, Capital Medical University, a specialized infectious disease hospital in China. Five LLMs were queried within a fixed period, and expert evaluations were conducted across five dimensions: accuracy, relevance, completeness, clarity, and reliability. Results: The comprehensive scores ranked from highest to lowest were DeepSeek (4.47), Qwen (4.33), Kimi (4.24), Doubao (4.13), and ChatGPT (3.41), with highly significant differences were observed among all models ( Conclusion: Significant differences were observed in the capacity of the five LLMs to address medication consultations for PLWH within the Chinese-language context. DeepSeek and Qwen achieved optimal overall performance, Doubao excelled in clarity, whereas ChatGPT yielded the poorest results. All models demonstrated significant limitations when handling complex pharmaceutical inquiries and cannot fully replace professional clinical pharmacists. Further optimization focusing on high-quality medical domain dataset training and algorithm refinement is therefore warranted.
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.