Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42361270›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2026

Large Language Models for Breast and Cervical Cancers Communication: Mixed Methods Evaluation Study Assessing Linguistic Quality, Safety, and Accessibility.

Agnik Saha, Victoria Churchill, Anny D Rodriguez, Ugur Kursuncu, Muhammed Y Idris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

5 authors.

Agnik SahaDepartment of Computer Science, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0009-0002-5102-8559
Victoria ChurchillHealth Education and Promotion, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0393-3212
Anny D RodriguezMorehouse School of Medicine, 720 Westview Drive, SW, Atlanta, GA, 30310-1496, United States, 1 404-756-8962.ORCID 0000-0001-5863-1129
Ugur KursuncuDepartment of Computer Science, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8108-9590
Muhammed Y IdrisMorehouse School of Medicine, 720 Westview Drive, SW, Atlanta, GA, 30310-1496, United States, 1 404-756-8962.ORCID 0000-0002-3899-3728

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Effective communication about breast and cervical cancers remains a public health challenge, with widespread misinformation and barriers to cancer-related language understanding. Large language models (LLMs) offer potential for scalable health communication, yet trade-offs between quality, safety, and accessibility of general-purpose and medical-domain LLMs remain underexplored. Objective: This study aimed to propose a comprehensive evaluation framework and systematically assess the performance of LLMs in generating breast and cervical cancer information, with a focus on linguistic quality, safety and trustworthiness, and communication accessibility and affectiveness. Methods: This mixed methods evaluation study assessed outputs from 5 general-purpose and 3 medical LLMs using real-world breast and cervical cancer-related questions curated from publicly available medical datasets. LLM-generated responses were evaluated in a controlled offline setting. Primary outcomes included linguistic quality (fluency, coherence, and accuracy), safety and trustworthiness (toxicity, bias, and harm potential), and communication accessibility and affectiveness (readability, empathy, and clarity). Qualitative ratings were performed by domain experts, while quantitative metrics were compared across models. Statistical analyses included Welch ANOVA to detect differences in metric scores, Games-Howell tests for pairwise comparisons, and Hedges g to assess effect sizes. Results: General-purpose LLMs, particularly Llama 3 and Gemma, demonstrated superior linguistic quality and affectiveness but often produced complex outputs that may limit accessibility. In contrast, medical LLMs (eg, MedAlpaca and BioMistral) generated simpler content suitable for broader audiences but scored lower in safety and empathy due to higher levels of hallucination, bias, and toxicity. Conclusions: While LLMs show promise for improving digital cancer communication, our findings reveal a trade-off between domain specialization and overall communication quality and safety. Future development of health-focused LLMs should prioritize hybrid modeling strategies to enhance trust, clarity, and clinical relevance in patient-facing tools.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsHealth CommunicationLarge Language ModelsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsFemaleHumansartificial intelligencehealth communicationlarge language modelsmedical informaticsnatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID42361270
PMCPMC13308906

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.