ArticleDigital health
Performance Comparison Between Domestic and International Large Language Models in Patient Education for Chinese Patients with Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Cross-Sectional Study.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to systematically evaluate and compare the performance of different large language models (LLMs) in providing medical advice for lumbar disc herniation (LDH) within the Chinese clinical context, addressing the current lack of standardized assessment tools for orthopedic guidance in China. Methods: We constructed a standardized dataset covering diagnosis, treatment, surgical risks, and healthcare navigation. Using a unified prompt, we tested eight models: four international (ChatGPT-4o, Gemini-3.0-Pro, Claude-4.0, Grok-4-auto) and four Chinese (DeepSeek, Doubao, Qwen-Max, Kimi). Senior spine surgeons evaluated responses in a blinded manner using the Mika scale (accuracy), modified DISCERN (reliability), EQIP, and GQS. Readability was assessed via the Ludong University Text Grading Platform. Results: Significant performance differences emerged among models (P < 0.001). DeepSeek and Doubao achieved the highest median accuracy (2.00; IQR 2.00-2.00). We observed a distinct "competency divergence": international models displayed stronger safety guardrails and logical robustness in complex reasoning, whereas Chinese models demonstrated unique advantages in service contextualization and local resource navigation. Currently, no single model perfectly integrates global medical evidence with local delivery contexts. Conclusion: DeepSeek, Doubao, and Gemini are the preferred LLMs for LDH patient education in China. While leading domestic models challenge the stereotype of international superiority in medical logic, the general scarcity of "excellent" responses (<25%) indicates LLMs remain auxiliary tools. Future optimization should prioritize Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) anchored in local clinical guidelines to ensure safe deployment.
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.