ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Assessment of vaccine information accuracy across large language models.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.