ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Performance of large language models in mitral valve surgery patient education: a comparative analysis.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs), a form of artificial intelligence, are increasingly being utilized in healthcare to support patient education and information delivery. The aim of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of five different LLMs (i.e., ChatGPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview, DeepSeek-V3, and Microsoft Copilot) in terms of accuracy, completeness, and readability, based on their responses to frequently asked questions in preoperative patient education for mitral valve surgery (MVS).
methodsA standardized questionnaire comprising seven frequently asked questions by patients prior to MVS was developed. Prompting procedures and model parameters were fully reported to support reproducibility. These questions were presented to each LLM in an identical manner. The responses were evaluated by two academic experts in cardiac surgery using structured assessment criteria across three main dimensions: accuracy, completeness, and readability. For the readability analysis, the Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) scale were utilized.
resultsThe ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview models received statistically significantly higher scores than Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Microsoft Copilot for both accuracy (median 5 for ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview vs. 4 for Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Microsoft Copilot, p < 0.001) and completeness (median 5 for Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview vs. 3 for Claude 3.7 Sonnet, p < 0.001). Claude 3.7 Sonnet achieved the highest readability scores, with significantly lower SMOG (10.90 for Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs. 12.24 for ChatGPT-4o, p = 0.006) and FKGL (8.0 for Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs. 9.04 for ChatGPT-4o, p = 0.004) scores, indicating simpler and more comprehensible sentence structures. Significant differences were observed among the evaluated models across all three assessment dimensions (p < 0.001 for all comparisons).
conclusionsThe LLMs represent valuable supplementary tools in patient education processes. However, their implementation in clinical practice must be carefully evaluated, particularly with regard to accuracy and completeness. This study highlights the potential applicability of ChatGPT-4o and Claude 3.7 Sonnet models for preoperative patient education in MVS, while emphasizing that all LLMs should be used under the supervision and guidance of healthcare professionals. For LLMs to be reliably utilized in the medical field, improvement in medical accuracy and standardization are essential.
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.