Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42688778›Full record

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.

Zhaoxia Huang, Yuxin Bai, Junyue Luo, Zihang Zhang, Chunlan Hu, Xinyu Hu, Liying Ruan, Jiaxin Zeng, Qianhui Jia, Luyao Deng and 5 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Zhaoxia HuangDepartment of Ophthalmology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Yuxin BaiSchool of Nursing, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Junyue LuoSchool of Nursing, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Zihang ZhangSchool of Nursing, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Chunlan HuSchool of Nursing, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Xinyu HuSchool of Nursing, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Liying RuanSchool of Nursing, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Jiaxin ZengSchool of Nursing, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Qianhui JiaSchool of Nursing, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Luyao DengSchool of Nursing, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Meifeng XiongSchool of Nursing, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Ying ZhouSchool of Nursing, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Ziyi QiSchool of Nursing, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Wenxi LyuCollege of Literature, Yancheng Teachers University, Yancheng, China.
Xu LiDepartment of Ophthalmology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Health EducationLarge Language ModelsPatient Education as TopicChinaComprehensionHumanshealth information qualitylarge language modelspatient educationreadabilitytype 2 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID42688778
PMCPMC13537033

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.