ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
A cross-sectional evaluation of large language model chatbot interfaces for patient-facing herpes zoster information: safety, information quality, and readability.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language model (LLM) chatbots are increasingly used to obtain health information. However, fluent and clinically plausible responses may still contain safety-relevant omissions, inadequate source attribution and disclosure, or difficult-to-read text. Objective: To evaluate the safety, accuracy, empathy, information quality, response-level source attribution and disclosure, overall quality, and readability of five LLM chatbot interfaces answering lay-oriented questions about herpes zoster. Methods: This cross-sectional evaluation used 46 standardised English-language questions across seven herpes zoster domains. Each question was submitted once to ChatGPT-5.5 Instant, DeepSeek-V4-Pro, Doubao-Seed-2.0-Pro, Gemini 3.5 Flash, and Qwen3.7-Plus under consumer-access conditions on June 2-3, 2026. Five dermatologists independently assessed safety, accuracy, empathy, DISCERN, Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and the Global Quality Score (GQS). Six readability indices were calculated. Paired comparisons and inter-rater agreement were evaluated using prespecified statistical methods. Results: The five interfaces generated 230 complete responses. Under the study conditions, 66 responses (28.7%) were classified as potentially unsafe using the prespecified ≥3/5-rater majority threshold, with no significant difference between interfaces (Cochran's Q = 1.661, df = 4, Conclusion: In this standardised benchmark, LLM chatbot interfaces provided generally favourable accuracy and information-quality scores but showed clinically relevant safety limitations, sparse source attribution and disclosure, and readability challenges. No interface consistently performed best across all outcomes. These findings represent single first responses obtained under the tested conditions and do not establish response stability across repeated queries. LLM-generated herpes zoster information should therefore be interpreted cautiously and should not replace individualised professional assessment or professionally reviewed patient information.
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.