ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
Patient education for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder using large language models: combining expert assessment and real-world patient interaction.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the educational performance of six mainstream LLMs for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) and evaluated patient satisfaction during real-world interactions. Methods: This study was conducted from March to April 2026. In the first Phase, Twenty NMOSD-related questions derived from clinical guidelines and patient concerns were submitted to six LLMs (ChatGPT-5.4, Gemini-3.1-pro, Claude-4.6-Sonnet, DeepSeek-3.2, Kimi-2.5, and Qwen-3.5-plus). Responses were anonymized and independently evaluated by three neuro-ophthalmology specialists using Likert framework assessing accuracy, completeness, readability, safety, and humanity. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). In the second Phase, the three best-performing models were subsequently evaluated through real-world interactions with ten NMOSD patients, and satisfaction scores were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models. Results: A total of 120 chatbot responses were evaluated. With a comprehensive evaluation, significant differences were observed across all assessment domains. Gemini-3.1-pro achieved the highest scores for accuracy and safety, while Qwen-3.5-plus demonstrated superior completeness and humanity. DeepSeek-3.2 generated the most accessible responses, exhibiting the lowest reading difficulty score. However, its completeness advantage should be interpreted with caution, as it may be partially influenced by its longer response length. Inter-rater reliability was good, with single-measure ICC values ranging from 0.535 to 0.759, and average-measure ICC values ranging from 0.775 to 0.904. In patient interactions, Qwen-3.5-plus achieved the highest satisfaction score, significantly outperforming Gemini-3.1-pro and DeepSeek-3.2. Although all LLMs demonstrate superior performance in patient education, the real-world interaction with patient needs to pay attention. Conclusions: LLMs demonstrate considerable potential for NMOSD patient education but exhibit variability across educational dimensions, and require further validation in larger cohorts. These findings highlight the importance of selecting LLMs according to specific patient education goals and underscore the importance of clinicians in rare disease counseling.
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.