ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2026
Large Language Models as Health Information Tools: Patient Use and Trust in Otolaryngology.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Patients increasingly use large language models (LLMs) for health information, yet their use patterns, perceptions, and impact on clinical communication in otolaryngology remain poorly characterized. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of adult patients at an academic otolaryngology clinic. The survey assessed demographics, LLM use for general or health-related questions, and perceptions of LLM-generated information, including usefulness, trust, and communication with clinicians. Primary outcomes were LLM use for health information overall and prior to the clinic visit. Secondary outcomes included perceived helpfulness, concordance with clinician information, preparedness, disclosure, and concerns. Results: Among 59 respondents (mean age 50.1 years; 53.4% female), 71.2% reported prior LLM use, and 28.6% used an LLM to learn about their condition before the visit. All participants reported LLM information as helpful (50.0% very, 50.0% somewhat), that LLM information mostly (62.5%) or partially (25.0%) aligned with clinician explanations. Most felt more prepared for the visit (46.7% much more, 40.0% somewhat more), yet trust remained moderate: 32.7% reported mostly or complete distrust. While concerns about accuracy (82.7%) and privacy (50.0%) were common, 46.2% were likely to use LLMs again. Most users (93.8%) did not disclose LLM use, although 56.2% believed clinicians should be aware. Exploratory analyzes showed no significant differences in LLM use or perceptions by education, income, or social vulnerability index. Conclusions: LLM use for health information is common among otolaryngology patients and associated with perceived benefit despite moderate trust and concerns. Engagement may be driven by factors beyond accuracy, including accessibility and perceived empathy. Level of Evidence: 3.
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.