ArticleDigital health
Large language model accuracy in inhaler technique counselling for asthma and COPD: A comparison of free and paid models across ten devices.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare ten large language models (LLMs) from seven AI companies, across free and paid tiers, on inhaler technique instruction accuracy for ten devices, benchmarked against GINA 2025 and GOLD 2026 strategy reports. Methods: In a cross-sectional, blinded evaluation, ten LLMs (ChatGPT Free/Plus, Claude Free/Pro, Gemini, Google AI Pro, DeepSeek, Microsoft Copilot, Perplexity AI, Meta AI) were queried between 10-17 March 2026 via each vendor's official web interface. Fifty standardised prompts (10 devices × 5 question types) were submitted in triplicate on different days, yielding 1500 outputs. Two pulmonologists and one allergist scored seven metrics step-completion rate, critical and non-critical error counts, step-sequencing accuracy, safety-warning score, and Likert-scaled overall accuracy and patient comprehensibility against a gold standard derived from GINA 2025, GOLD 2026, the ERS/ISAM Task Force consensus, and manufacturer leaflets. Results: Paid tiers outperformed free tiers on five of seven metrics (Mann-Whitney U; all Conclusions: Paid subscriptions yield meaningful but non-uniform gains in inhaler-instruction accuracy. Safety-warning omissions and test-retest variability argue against autonomous LLM use; these tools are best deployed as adjuncts to clinician- and pharmacist-led teach-back 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.