Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42388752›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2026

Assessment of vaccine information accuracy across large language models.

Julia Siebielec, Filip Raciborski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 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

2 authors.

Julia SiebielecDepartment of Environmental Hazard Prevention, Allergology and Immunology, Warsaw Medical University, Warsaw, Poland.
Filip RaciborskiDepartment of Environmental Hazard Prevention, Allergology and Immunology, Warsaw Medical University, Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Use of Large Language Models (LLMs) as a health information source is on the rise. As the amount of people willing to self-diagnose with the tools' help is increasing, verifying the correctness of generated responses becomes extremely important. Methods: Four LLMs (ChatGPT, Copilot, DeepSeek, Gemini) were chosen for the analysis. All models were asked 90 multiple-choice questions on the various topics surrounding vaccination, sourced from a government information website. Additionally, the LLMs were asked two open-ended questions regarding the vaccine information sources, as well as advantages and disadvantages of universal vaccination. Answers were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. Data was collected in March 2026. Results: Biggest proportion of correct answers was achieved by Gemini (0.98), smallest one - by ChatGPT (0.86). Models' results were found to be non-homogeneous ( Conclusion: Tested LLMs were able to identify correct option when presented with multiple choices and to prepare correct, yet vague information when asked an open-ended question. This points to a limited potential of LLMs serving as a vaccine information source, as the generated content, while factually correct, was not enough to be usable on its own.

Indexed as

Large Language ModelsVaccinationVaccinesHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesVaccinesChatGPTCopilotDeepSeekGeminigenerative artificial intelligencelarge language modelvaccinationvaccine information

Identifiers

PMID42388752
PMCPMC13319027

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.