ArticlePediatric research2026
Performance of large language models in pediatric infectious disease education: a multi-condition comparative study.
Article in Pediatric research, 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
backgroundEvaluating how appropriate current large language models (LLMs) respond to common pediatric infectious disease (PID) questions is important for understanding their potential role in education and clinical support. Therefore, we evaluated and compared the clinical quality of answers produced by different LLMs when given professionally written, clinician-style case descriptions, using a purpose-built multi-domain evaluation tool.
methodsThree different LLMs, including DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp, ChatGPT-5, and Gemini 2.5 Flash, were investigated using 12 relevant PID scenarios. Each scenario included five open-ended questions: etiology, clinical features, diagnostics, treatment options, and complications. Two PID specialists independently reviewed all responses using a Likert scoring tool.
resultsAll three models received high overall scores. ChatGPT-5 achieved perfect domain scores (10.0), whereas DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp showed similarly strong results, with only minor reductions in diagnostics (9.83) and treatment (9.92). Gemini 2.5 Flash demonstrated higher variability, particularly in treatment (8.83) and diagnostics (9.75), while matching the other models in clinical findings and complications (10.0) and scoring 9.83 in etiology. However, there were no statistically significant differences across models in domain-level comparisons (all p > 0.05). In addition, model-level analyses similarly demonstrated high accuracy (6.0; 5.98; 5.85), completeness (3.0; 2.97; 2.87), and safety (1.0; 1.0; 0.97) for ChatGPT-5, DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp, and Gemini 2.5 Flash, respectively (accuracy: p = 0.074; completeness: p = 0.066; safety: p = 0.14).
conclusionCurrent LLMs performed highly in structured, expert-reviewed PID scenarios and may assist with information organization and early-stage clinical reasoning. However, their optimal use remains within clinician-supervised workflows, where AI-generated outputs complement, rather than replace, human clinical judgment. IMPACT: Current large language models (LLMs) show consistently high-quality performance across pediatric infectious disease scenarios, with no significant differences between models. Our study adds a structured, multi-domain comparison using clinician-style cases and expert evaluation, providing detailed insights into accuracy, completeness, and safety. The findings support the use of LLMs in medical education and early clinical reasoning, while highlighting their role as clinician-supervised tools rather than replacements for clinical judgment. The results demonstrate the reliability of LLMs in organizing clinical information and identifying key diagnostic and management elements in standardized scenarios.
Identifiers
42892636What 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.