ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Evaluation of large language model-generated information in diabetes health patient education: a scoping review.
Article in Frontiers in public 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetes is a leading cause of disability and death, posing a heavy healthcare burden globally. While standardized health education is crucial for glycemic control and mitigation of complications, traditional educational models face challenges due to insufficient scalability. The ongoing development of AI-based large language model (LLM) methods and technologies presents significant opportunities for health education in the field of diabetes. Objective: A scoping review of research on LLM-generated information for diabetes patient health education: Synthesizing current application status and performance outcomes. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) evidence-based healthcare centre's scoping review guidance was utilized as the methodological framework, then five databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, (American Psychological Association) APA PsycNet, and The Cochrane Library) were searched to retrieve studies from their inception to March 26, 2026. Two reviewers independently performed literature screening, full-text reading, and data extraction. Results: A total of 21 studies from nine countries were included. Application scenarios were categorized into five domains: general health education, dietary education, complication education, exercise education and technology education. Overall, the existing evidence indicates that LLMs perform well in terms of accuracy and completeness; however, significant limitations remain in readability, reliability, and usability. Moreover, ethical and safety concerns are prominent, including data security, fairness, patient safety, and liability. Conclusion: Despite existing technical and ethical challenges, LLMs still have potential as an auxiliary tool in diabetes health education. Future research needs to enhance technical design optimization, develop patient-centered designs, standardize evaluation metrics, and structured ethical oversight to further validate their practical application effects in diabetes health education for patients with diabetes.
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.