ArticleDigital health
Performance evaluation of five major large language models in tuberculosis Q&A systems: A multidimensional assessment of readability, quality, and reliability.
Article in Digital health. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) is a chronic infectious disease that burdens patients and public health systems. Limited reach of traditional education and uneven online information may undermine patients' understanding, adherence, and trust. Large language models (LLMs) show promise for TB health education, but systematic evaluation is lacking. Objective: To evaluate five large language models in pulmonary tuberculosis Q&A (Question and Answer) scenarios and examine the effects of different large language models and TB health education themes on response quality, readability, and reliability, thereby supporting standardized artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted health education. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted from October 5 to October 11, 2025. Twenty pulmonary tuberculosis-related questions were developed with the assistance of a respiratory physician and categorized into five themes. The questions were entered into five large language models (Doubao, DeepSeek, Wenxin Yiyan, Tongyi Qianwen, and ChatGPT) to generate 100 text responses. Quality was evaluated using patient-education suitability (C-PEMAT-P) and Global Quality Score (GQS), and readability using seven indices, including Automated Readability Index (ARI) and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES). Statistical analyses included One-way analysis of variance (One-way ANOVA), Kruskal-Wallis, and correlation analysis. Results: GPT-5 achieved the highest C-PEMAT-P scores, followed by Doubao, while GQS scores were similar across models. Models showed significant differences on several readability indices, whereas themes had limited effects. Quality indicators were modestly associated with readability, while readability indices were strongly intercorrelated. Conclusions: Model type is a key determinant of TB health education text quality. Quality and reading difficulty are related but relatively independent and should be jointly considered when selecting large language model (LLM)-generated materials. Further studies should include more models, diseases, and patient-reported outcomes to optimize AI-assisted health education.
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.