ArticleNpj viruses2026
Performance of large language models as a source of clinical information on bacteriophage therapy.
Article in Npj viruses, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bacteriophage therapy is re-emerging as a potential strategy to address antimicrobial resistance, but standardized patient education materials are limited. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for patient-facing medical information. The quality of LLM-generated responses to 20 patient-relevant questions was evaluated by 12 clinicians and research experts in bacteriophage therapy independently rated each response for accuracy, completeness, clarity, and tone/empathy using 5-point Likert scales. Expert suggestions for improvement were recorded. A total of 960 ratings were analyzed. Adjusted mean scores ranged from 3.36 to 3.96 across domains, indicating generally favorable evaluations for all models. Significant differences among LLMs were observed for completeness and tone/empathy (Holm-adjusted p = 0.042 for both), but not for accuracy or clarity. Differences were small in magnitude (Cohen's d = 0.12-0.29). Claude scored significantly lower than the other models for completeness and tone/empathy, while Perplexity achieved the highest completeness scores. Experts recommended improvements for 34-40% of responses; wrong information was given in 20%. The best responses were revised into an expert-informed patient guide provided as Supplementary Material, presenting a hybrid model in which LLMs generate draft patient information that is subsequently refined by clinical experts, particularly in rapidly evolving therapeutic domains lacking standardized educational resources.
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.