ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Evaluating search-enabled large language model interfaces for mpox public health consultation: a guideline-based comparative study.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Search-enabled large language model interfaces are increasingly used by the public for health information, but their performance in mpox-related public health consultation remains unclear. This study evaluated their safety, accuracy, empathy, reliability/information quality, and readability. Methods: We conducted a single-query comparative cross-sectional evaluation using 52 predefined mpox-related public consultation questions. Each question was submitted once to each of six search-enabled LLM interfaces, yielding 312 first responses. Responses were assessed against a guideline-based reference framework. Safety was coded as a binary outcome, while accuracy and empathy were rated on 5-point scales. Reliability/information quality was evaluated using DISCERN, EQIP, JAMA benchmark criteria, and GQS. Readability was assessed using six established readability indices. Five trained raters independently evaluated the human-scored outcomes. Results: Unsafe responses were relatively infrequent but occurred in all six interfaces, with safe-response rates ranging from 86.5 to 92.3%. No pairwise difference in Safety remained statistically significant after Benjamini-Hochberg correction. Overall differences across interfaces were statistically significant for Accuracy, Empathy, all four reliability/information quality measures, and all six readability indices. Benjamini-Hochberg-adjusted Conclusion: The evaluated search-enabled LLM interfaces showed heterogeneous performance across safety, accuracy, empathy, reliability/information quality, and readability. Although unsafe responses were relatively uncommon, potentially harmful outputs occurred in every interface. These findings support the need for guideline-based evaluation, source transparency, readability optimization, and robust safety safeguards when such interfaces are evaluated or considered for mpox-related public health consultation. The results represent a time- and configuration-specific interface-level snapshot; they should not be attributed to the underlying base models in isolation or interpreted as establishing reproducible performance or a stable hierarchy across sessions, versions, or settings.
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.