ArticleRheumatology international2026
Large language models show high clinical safety but differences in completeness for reproductive counselling in women with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a comparative expert evaluation.
Article in Rheumatology international, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Specialized pregnancy counselling improves maternal and infant outcomes in women with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (iRMDs). As such services are not universally available, large language models (LLMs) may increasingly serve as an accessible source of information for patients seeking guidance on family planning, pregnancy, and lactation. This highlights the need to evaluate this software in terms of their adequacy, accuracy and overall reliability. The aim of the analysis is to evaluate the possibility of using LLMs as reliable sources of information regarding female patients suffering from iRMD and going through the period of pregnancy. 54 questions were formulated, which concern the impact and general relationship between pregnancy and rheumatic diseases. The questions were given to four LLMs, ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Gemini and Grok, and the corresponding answers were obtained. The responses were rated across three clinical domains on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree/very poor to 5 = strongly agree/excellent) by ten European rheumatology experts and with the help of appropriate statistical indicators calculated, the reliability of the LLMs was assessed. 2160 items were evaluated. All models demonstrated high performance in "Clinical Safety" (Means > 4.10). For "Clinical Accuracy", DeepSeek and ChatGPT scored highest (Median 4.40 for both). Significant deviations were observed in "Completeness and Relevance", where DeepSeek dominated (Mean 4.24, 95% CI 4.17-4.30) and Gemini showed the lowest performance (Mean 3.46, 95% CI 3.27-3.64). Inter-rater agreement was poor to slight (Fleiss' kappa range: -0.043 to 0.059) and moderate for ICC (range: 0.259 to 0.692). LLMs currently exhibit uniformly strong safety behaviors when providing medical information about family planning, pregnancy and lactation in iRMD. However, significant differences exist regarding completeness and relevance, where DeepSeek and ChatGPT are currently the most reliable and complete models for this domain. Furthermore, the variability in responses and low inter-rater agreement highlight that LLMs require further parameterization, are useful tools for routine care, but cannot replace expert medical judgment.
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.