ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Evaluating large language models using the Type 2 Diabetes Health Education guideline: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT-4.1, Claude-4.0, DeepSeek-V3, and ERNIE Bot 4.5 Turbo.
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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate the quality and readability of health information generated by four large language models (LLMs) in response to inquiries regarding type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), using an authoritative Chinese clinical guideline as the reference standard. Methods: A total of 124 standardized questions were extracted from the Chinese Type 2 Diabetes Popular Science Guidelines. Six endocrinologists and diabetes specialists conducted independent, blind evaluations using the CLEAR tool (Completeness, Lack of false Information, Evidence, Appropriateness, Relevance) and PEMAT-P (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable materials). Response characteristics were also recorded. Between-model differences were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis H test with Bonferroni pairwise comparisons. Results: All four models achieved total CLEAR scores within the "very good" range (19-25), with no significant differences seen between models (χ Conclusion: Although the four LLMs generally provide accurate and pertinent information regarding type 2 diabetes, enduring limits in actionability and inconsistencies among models in content completeness and understandability restrict their effective use in diabetic patient education. Future development should prioritize stronger step-by-step behavioral guidance and differentiated, scenario-specific model deployment to enhance their value in patient-facing diabetes self-management support.
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.