ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Performance of large language models as an information resource on functional hypothalamic amenorrhea for patients and healthcare professionals.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To assess and compare the accuracy, readability, and overall performance of large language models (LLMs) in answering questions about functional hypothalamic amenorrhea (FHA) for patients and healthcare professionals. Methods: A total of 11 patient-level and 15 clinician-level FHA-related questions were entered separately into four LLMs: ChatGPT 3.5 (free version), ChatGPT 4.0 (updated, paid subscription), Gemini, and OpenEvidence. OpenEvidence was used only for clinician-based questions. Responses were evaluated by three expert reviewers blinded to the LLM used who rated them as accurate and complete, accurate but incomplete, or inaccurate. A fourth reviewer resolved discordant scores. Readability for patient-level questions was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and word count. Lower FRES scores indicate more difficult reading. Accuracy and completeness were compared using odds ratios (95% CI) with ChatGPT 3.5 as the reference model, and differences in readability were analyzed using Friedman's test. Results: LLM performance varied across question types. For patient-level questions, ChatGPT 4.0 achieved the highest accuracy (9 of 11; 82%), followed by ChatGPT 3.5 and Gemini (each 8 of 11; 73%), with no statistically significant differences. Among clinician-level questions, OpenEvidence demonstrated perfect accuracy (15 of 15; 100%), compared with 93% for and 80% for ChatGPT 4.0 and Gemini. Completeness followed similar patterns, with OpenEvidence providing the most complete clinician responses (93%) and ChatGPT 4.0 the most complete patient-level responses (89%). Readability differed significantly among models ( Discussion: LLMs demonstrated good overall performance in answering FHA-related questions but often provided incorrect or incomplete information. Fine tuning field-specific data, engineered prompts, and obtaining human-in-the-loop feedback may help improve the accuracy of these models.
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.