ArticleWorld journal of methodology2026
Do bots provide correct and adequate guidance regarding acidity: A blinded comparison rated by patients and physicians.
Article in World journal of methodology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) are increasingly accessed by patients for gastrointestinal health information. Despite their growing use, concerns persist regarding accuracy, empathy, actionability, and readability of responses generated by LLMs.
aimTo assess the responses generated by ChatGPT-5, Gemini-2.5, and Claude-4 for common patient questions on "acidity" (heartburn/dyspepsia/gastroesophageal reflux disease).
methodsThirty-nine frequently asked questions were submitted to each model. Responses were independently rated by three gastroenterologists for accuracy, comprehensiveness, empathy, and actionability; and by 20 patients for empathy, comprehensiveness, actionability, compassion, and usefulness. Readability indices were also analyzed.
resultsSignificant inter-model differences were observed across multiple physician-rated domains. Gemini-2.5 and Claude-4 achieved higher mean scores for accuracy, comprehensiveness, and actionability compared with ChatGPT-5 (
conclusionThese findings underscore the need for careful model selection and suggest that hybrid approaches integrating complementary model strengths may optimize safe and effective artificial intelligence -assisted patient education in gastroenterology.
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.