ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Agreement between artificial intelligence and expert evaluation in assessing the quality of asthma health education videos on YouTube and Bilibili: cross-sectional study.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Online video platforms such as YouTube and Bilibili have become important sources of health information for the public. However, the quality and reliability of online health education videos vary substantially. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), has recently shown potential for automated evaluation of health information, yet evidence regarding the agreement between AI-based and expert evaluations remains limited. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted to analyze asthma-related health education videos retrieved from YouTube and Bilibili. Two medical experts independently evaluated video quality using the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and modified DISCERN (mDISCERN). AI-assisted evaluation was performed using the GPT-4 large language model based on video transcripts under standardized prompts. Interrater agreement between experts was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Spearman correlations. Agreement between AI and expert ratings was evaluated using Spearman correlation and Bland-Altman analysis. Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify factors associated with differences between AI and expert scores. Results: A total of 200 asthma-related health education videos were included, with 100 videos from each platform. AI ratings showed moderate correlations with expert ratings for both GQS ( Conclusion: AI-generated evaluations demonstrated moderate positive correlations with expert assessments in evaluating the quality of asthma-related health education videos. AI may serve as a scalable tool for preliminary screening of online health information, although systematic differences remain across platforms and content characteristics. Expert evaluation remains essential to ensure the accuracy and reliability of medical information assessment.
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.