ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluation of AI language models in answering pregnancy-related questions assessed by obstetrics specialists.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Performance evaluation of large language models in real-world perinatal medication consultations: a cross-sectional study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
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
This study aimed to compare the performance of three large language models-ChatGPT-3.5, Gemini, and ChatGPT-4.0-in generating responses to ten frequently asked pregnancy-related questions, as evaluated by obstetrics and gynecology specialists. Seventy-five specialists independently rated 30 anonymized AI-generated responses using a 5-point Likert scale across four domains: accuracy, reliability, patient-friendliness, and comprehensibility. All questions were standardized and presented verbatim to each model using identical zero-shot prompts. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferroni-adjusted Mann-Whitney U post-hoc comparisons. Inter-rater consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Spearman correlation was used to examine associations between clinical experience and evaluation patterns. ChatGPT-4.0 demonstrated the highest overall performance, particularly in accuracy (median 4.35; mean ± SD: 4.30 ± 0.48) and patient-friendliness (4.40; 4.35 ± 0.47). Gemini performed comparably to ChatGPT-4.0 in comprehensibility (3.70; 3.68 ± 0.54), while ChatGPT-3.5 consistently received the lowest scores. Significant differences were observed among the three models for accuracy, reliability, and patient-friendliness (all p < 0.001), but not for comprehensibility (p = 0.521). A modest positive correlation was found between clinical experience and reliability ratings (r = 0.261, p = 0.0238). Among the evaluated models, ChatGPT-4.0 provided the most clinically aligned and patient-friendly responses to common pregnancy questions. While AI tools may offer valuable support for patient education, expert oversight remains essential to ensure accuracy and safety. Further research should explore their real-world impact on patient comprehension, behavior, and clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.