ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2026
A comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and Gemini for stroke caregiver support: accuracy, safety, and response characteristics.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe use of large language models is increasing in healthcare. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the responses provided by ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Gemini (Google) to frequently asked questions about stroke and its treatment by caregivers, in terms of clarity, empathy/tone, actionability, information risk/safety, and accuracy.
methodsThis study used a qualitative content analysis to evaluate responses generated by large language models to stroke-related caregiving questions. Ten frequently asked questions were identified through a review of the literature on stroke caregiving. These questions were presented to the free versions of ChatGPT and Gemini, and responses from each model were recorded. The recorded responses were independently evaluated by 10 experts from neurology, physiatry, and physiotherapy using a structured Likert-scale instrument across five predefined categories: clarity, empathy/tone, actionability, information risk/safety, and accuracy.
resultsGeneralized estimating equation analyses indicated that the overall trends in response scores did not differ significantly between ChatGPT and Gemini across all evaluated categories (p>0.05). In contrast, response score trends varied primarily in clarity and empathy/tone, with limited variation in actionability (p<0.05). Intraclass correlation coefficient values were below 0.50 for both ChatGPT and Gemini.
conclusionAlthough both models generally performed well, question-level variations and low inter-rater reliability limit generalizability, and even small shortcomings in information risk may have important implications for stroke caregivers and, indirectly, for patients with stroke.
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.