ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Safety, accuracy, empathic communication, information quality, and readability of five large language model interfaces answering public questions about interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/objectives: Patients increasingly use large language model (LLM) interfaces for health information, but their safety and quality for public questions about interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS) remain uncertain. This study evaluated the safety, accuracy, empathic communication, information quality, reliability, and readability of five publicly accessible LLM interfaces. Methods: In this CHART-guided cross-sectional comparative study, 58 public-facing IC/BPS questions were submitted once, in English, to ChatGPT, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, DeepSeek, and Doubao using a standardized single-turn, zero-shot protocol. Three blinded senior urologists independently assessed safety, accuracy, empathic communication, DISCERN, EQIP, JAMA benchmark criteria, and Global Quality Score. Six readability indices were calculated. Results: Inter-rater agreement was significant for all manually assessed metrics. Fleiss' kappa for safety was 0.822, and ICC(2,1) values for other rater-assessed metrics ranged from 0.761 to 0.848. Unsafe responses occurred in all interfaces, ranging from 5.2% for ChatGPT to 8.6% for DeepSeek and Doubao, without a significant between-interface difference (Cochran Conclusion: Publicly accessible LLM interfaces showed domain-specific differences when answering IC/BPS-related public questions. Unsafe responses were uncommon but present in all interfaces, and no interface consistently outperformed the others. LLM interfaces may support general IC/BPS education and question preparation but should not replace clinician-led evaluation or individualized medical advice.
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.