ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2026
Evaluation of large language model responses to patient questions on oral anticoagulant therapy: a comparative expert assessment.
Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language model (LLM)-based chatbots are increasingly used by patients for health information; however, their reliability in high-risk cardiovascular therapies such as oral anticoagulation remains uncertain. This study evaluated the perceived accuracy, clarity, and completeness of LLM-generated responses to common patient queries compared with standard-derived expert responses (SDERs). Methods: A cross-sectional comparative study evaluated responses generated by ChatGPT-4.5, Gemini Pro 2.5, and DeepSeek-V3 to 11 frequently asked questions related to five oral anticoagulants: warfarin, dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban. Responses were generated using a standardized patient-focused prompt. SDERs were developed by cardiologists and clinical pharmacists using authoritative references. All responses were anonymized and independently assessed by two blinded clinical pharmacists using a five-point Likert scale evaluating accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Interrater reliability was assessed using linearly weighted Cohen's κ, and group comparisons were analyzed using the Friedman test with post hoc adjustments. Results: Interrater reliability ranged from fair to almost perfect (κ = 0.31-0.84). ChatGPT-4.5 achieved the highest mean ratings across all evaluation domains, particularly for completeness. Significant differences were observed among response sources for accuracy, clarity, and completeness ( Conclusion: ChatGPT-4.5 received the highest mean expert ratings for patient education regarding oral anticoagulants. Performance differences were most evident for warfarin-related queries, whereas responses for direct oral anticoagulants were broadly comparable across sources.
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.