ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Assessment of accuracy, quality, and readability of large language models in kidney transplantation practice.
Article in World journal of urology, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to comparatively evaluate the accuracy, overall quality, and readability of responses generated by three contemporary large language models (LLMs)-Grok AI, ChatGPT-5 Plus, and Gemini 2.5 Flash-to clinical questions commonly encountered in kidney transplantation (KT) practice.
methodsTen open-ended clinical scenarios covering surgical techniques, complication management, immunosuppressive strategies, and perioperative care were independently assessed by two experienced physicians. LLM-generated responses were evaluated using a structured rubric assessing scientific accuracy, comprehensiveness, clarity, and clinical relevance (equally weighted), along with the Global Quality Score (GQS). Readability was analyzed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES). Inter-rater reliability was determined using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
resultsAll three LLMs demonstrated consistently high performance, with mean rubric scores exceeding 9.2/10 and GQS values above 4.4/5. Grok AI achieved the highest numerical scores (rubric: 9.5 ± 0.71; GQS: 4.7 ± 0.48), followed by ChatGPT-5 Plus (9.4 ± 0.70; 4.6 ± 0.52) and Gemini 2.5 Flash (9.2 ± 1.03; 4.4 ± 0.70); however, no statistically significant differences were observed (p > 0.05). FRES values ranged from 23.85 to 32.19, indicating professional-level readability suitable for physicians. Inter-rater reliability was high across all measures (Cronbach's alpha: 0.737-0.889; ICC: p < 0.05). Key limitations include the potential for LLM hallucinations, the limited number of scenarios, and the evaluation of text-based responses at a single time point.
conclusionsCurrent-generation LLMs show high and comparable performance in addressing complex KT-related clinical questions. Their consistent accuracy, quality, and readability support their potential role as adjunctive clinical decision-support tools, provided appropriate physician oversight.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42886251What 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.