ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
Comparative performance of four large language models in generating evidence-based exercise prescriptions using FITT-VP framework.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Exercise prescription plays a critical role in health management, but effective implementation is limited by practitioner expertise and time constraints. Large language models (LLMs) offer potential for generating personalized prescriptions, yet their comparative performance within established frameworks remains unexplored. Methods: This study evaluated four advanced LLMs (GPT-4o, Claude 3.7, DeepSeek R1, and Grok-3) in generating exercise prescriptions based on the FITT-VP framework (Frequency, Intensity, Time, Type, Volume, Progression). Thirty synthetic patient profiles were designed from epidemiological data and clinical guidelines, and validated through a three-stage process involving sports medicine students and expert review. Three certified exercise specialists independently rated each prescription across the six FITT-VP dimensions using a 0-10 scale. One-way repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction and effect size calculations were applied. Results: Across six FITT-VP dimensions (maximum total: 60), Claude 3.7 showed the highest total score (50.23 ± 1.75), followed by Grok-3 (47.42 ± 1.50), GPT-4o (44.02 ± 1.68), and DeepSeek R1 (40.30 ± 1.46). ANOVA revealed significant differences among models (F = 250.58, p < 0.001, η² = 0.896). Conclusion: This study establishes important benchmarks for AI in exercise medicine, with Claude 3.7 showing promise as a drafting tool for individualized exercise prescriptions and supporting a collaborative human-AI framework. These results, however, are based on a single-run evaluation of static synthetic profiles and expert-rated prescription quality rather than real-world clinical outcomes; multi-run variability assessment and clinical validation with human-AI interaction and patient follow-up are required before implementation.
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.