Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42314147›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026

Evaluation of Five Large Language Models for Parental Education in Pediatric Anesthesia: Reliability and Readability Study.

Fulin Pu, Jishuang Hong, Xiaoying Wei, Yanling Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 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

4 authors.

Fulin Pu *Department of Anesthesiology, Hospital of Stomatology, Guanghua School of Stomatology, Sun Yat-Sen University, 56 Lingyuan West Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510055, China, 86 02083871483.ORCID 0009-0002-1614-0836
Jishuang Hong *Department of Anesthesiology, Hospital of Stomatology, Guanghua School of Stomatology, Sun Yat-Sen University, 56 Lingyuan West Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510055, China, 86 02083871483.ORCID 0009-0007-0026-9375
Xiaoying WeiNursing Department, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6866-0529
Yanling ChenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hospital of Stomatology, Guanghua School of Stomatology, Sun Yat-Sen University, 56 Lingyuan West Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510055, China, 86 02083871483.ORCID 0009-0009-4559-0861

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Although large language models (LLMs) show potential for patient education, their accuracy, usability, and comprehensibility lack validation in high-risk pediatric anesthesia. Rigorous evaluation is therefore essential prior to widespread clinical use in perioperative parental anesthesia education. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy, reliability, and readability of responses generated by 5 LLMs to parental inquiries regarding pediatric anesthesia, and to assess their suitability for clinical use in perioperative caregiver education. Methods: Two expert anesthesiologists identified 33 parental questions on pediatric anesthesia by screening authoritative resources and Google Trends. On December 14, 2025, these questions were submitted to 5 LLMs (DeepSeek-V3.2, ChatGPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Copilot, and Perplexity) via official web interfaces with default settings and zero-shot prompting, with each query in a separate conversation. Responses were standardized for blinded assessment. Two pediatric anesthesiologists with ≥10 years of clinical experience independently evaluated accuracy and reliability using the 4-point Likert accuracy scale, DISCERN, Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark, and Global Quality Score (GQS). After text preprocessing, readability was evaluated using 6 algorithms (Automated Readability Index [ARI], Flesch Reading Ease Score [FRES], Gunning Fog Index [GFI], Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level [FKGL], Coleman-Liau Index [CL], and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook [SMOG]) via an online calculator. Interrater reliability was analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC); differences across models were assessed with the Kruskal-Wallis H test; and deviations from the sixth-grade benchmark were evaluated using 1-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (P<.05 considered significant). Results: All 5 LLMs demonstrated high clinical accuracy (>90%; P=.12), with Gemini reaching 100%. Nevertheless, safety risks and content hallucinations were still observed. Excluding Gemini and Copilot, the remaining 3 models (ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Perplexity) each produced unsafe content in 3.03% (n=1) of the 33 queries. Hallucinations were detected in all models except Gemini, with DeepSeek and Perplexity showing the highest hallucination rate (3/33, 9.09%). Furthermore, Perplexity showed superior reliability on DISCERN (median 41; P<.05), yet no model achieved a "good" rating. Gemini achieved the highest EQIP (median 66.67%; P<.05) despite lower GQS (median 3). Transparency was universally poor (JAMA median ≤1), with DeepSeek and ChatGPT showing a "floor effect." ChatGPT had superior readability, but all models exceeded the recommended 6-grade complexity level. Conclusions: In this study, 5 LLMs generally provided clinically accurate information when responding to parental questions about pediatric anesthesia. However, limitations were also identified, including hallucinated content, safety-related deficiencies, limited source transparency, and readability levels exceeding recommended standards. Therefore, LLM-generated information should be interpreted with caution and should not replace clinician guidance.

Indexed as

ComprehensionLarge Language ModelsParentsPediatric AnesthesiaChildHumansReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnairesaccuracylarge language modelpatient educationpediatric anesthesiareadabilityreliability

Identifiers

PMID42314147
PMCPMC13278617

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.