ArticleJournal of global health2026
Evaluating COPD care assistance: a comparative study of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, and ERNIE bot performance.
Article in Journal of global 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language model (LLM) chatbots are increasingly used to provide health information, yet their reliability in addressing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) care questions in the Chinese context remains unclear. To evaluate and compare the performance of three publicly available LLM chatbots - ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0 (OpenAI), and ERNIE Bot (Baidu) - in answering chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) care questions in China. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional comparative evaluation of three publicly available LLM chatbots (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, and ERNIE Bot). We developed 40 COPD care questions spanning 7 prespecified domains relevant to patient education and self-management. All questions were submitted in Chinese in independent new chat sessions to minimise context carryover. Three consultant-level respiratory physicians independently rated each response for accuracy (1 = poor, 2 = borderline, 3 = good). We summarised accuracy as the sum of three ratings (range 3-9) and derived a majority-vote accuracy category. For responses rated 'good' by majority vote, physicians additionally rated comprehensiveness on a five-point scale. Information quality was further assessed using a modified DISCERN framework and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) understandability and actionability domains. Results: Most responses were rated as 'good' for accuracy across chatbots. ERNIE Bot achieved higher total accuracy scores than ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0, and a higher proportion of 'good' ratings in this Chinese-language evaluation. However, comprehensiveness scores for 'good' responses were low across all systems (mean ~ 1.4-2.0/5), and PEMAT actionability was limited, indicating that few responses included concrete, patient-executable steps. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that LLM chatbots may support basic COPD patient education in Chinese settings, but current responses often lack sufficient comprehensiveness and actionable guidance. These tools should not be used as standalone clinical advice and require appropriate safeguards and clinician oversight.
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.