Skip to content
Open access

Evaluating search-enabled large language model interfaces for mpox public health consultation: a guideline-based comparative study

Aug 2026 · Frontiers in Public Health · Vol 14 · 0 citations · 43 references
Medicine

TL;DR

The evaluated search-enabled LLM interfaces showed heterogeneous performance across safety, accuracy, empathy, reliability/information quality, and readability, which support the need for guideline-based evaluation, source transparency, readability optimization, and robust safety safeguards when such interfaces are evaluated or considered for mpox-related public health consultation.

Abstract

Background Search-enabled large language model interfaces are increasingly used by the public for health information, but their performance in mpox-related public health consultation remains unclear. This study evaluated their safety, accuracy, empathy, reliability/information quality, and readability. Methods We conducted a single-query comparative cross-sectional evaluation using 52 predefined mpox-related public consultation questions. Each question was submitted once to each of six search-enabled LLM interfaces, yielding 312 first responses. Responses were assessed against a guideline-based reference framework. Safety was coded as a binary outcome, while accuracy and empathy were rated on 5-point scales. Reliability/information quality was evaluated using DISCERN, EQIP, JAMA benchmark criteria, and GQS. Readability was assessed using six established readability indices. Five trained raters independently evaluated the human-scored outcomes. Results Unsafe responses were relatively infrequent but occurred in all six interfaces, with safe-response rates ranging from 86.5 to 92.3%. No pairwise difference in Safety remained statistically significant after Benjamini–Hochberg correction. Overall differences across interfaces were statistically significant for Accuracy, Empathy, all four reliability/information quality measures, and all six readability indices. Benjamini–Hochberg-adjusted post hoc analyses identified outcome-specific pairwise differences, although the pairwise patterns varied across measures. Conclusion The evaluated search-enabled LLM interfaces showed heterogeneous performance across safety, accuracy, empathy, reliability/information quality, and readability. Although unsafe responses were relatively uncommon, potentially harmful outputs occurred in every interface. These findings support the need for guideline-based evaluation, source transparency, readability optimization, and robust safety safeguards when such interfaces are evaluated or considered for mpox-related public health consultation. The results represent a time- and configuration-specific interface-level snapshot; they should not be attributed to the underlying base models in isolation or interpreted as establishing reproducible performance or a stable hierarchy across sessions, versions, or settings.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Aug 2026

Large Language Models as Clinical Support Tools in Drug Information Services: Performance Comparison With Pharmacists

LLMs show potential as tools for preliminary drug information retrieval and rapid responses generation in drug information services, however, variable concordance and persistent limitations in citation credibility indicate the need for continued pharmacist oversight.

Nuntapong Boonrit, Najwa Bin-Useng, Aphichaya Sirijariyawat et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

The Reliability of Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Health Care Settings: Scoping Review

It is suggested that the reliability of health care LLM reliability is difficult to evaluate adequately using a single universal standard, and future evaluations of health care LLM reliability need to be guided by standardized evaluation frameworks that reflect domain-specific contexts.

Euijun Yang, S. Ko, Hyekyung Woo · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

Quality, readability, and clinical-risk signals of default public-interface LLM responses to vascular and perioperative patient questions: a cross-sectional snapshot

In this English-language benchmark of default first responses from five public LLM interfaces accessed through specific logged-in accounts from a Hong Kong, China IP address during a single late-May 2026 window, 107 of 110 responses received the maximum Guideline Concordance Score, and no response met the prespecified...

Wei Zhong, Yuanyuan Zhang, Yu Huang et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Jul 2026

Assessing multiple-choice question quality in internal medicine: a comparative analysis of three large language models against expert consensus

Claude and Gemini demonstrate moderate to strong agreement with experts for cognitive level classification and detection of objective technical flaws, suggesting their potential as adjunctive tools in MCQ review, but weak agreement on learning outcome alignment and variability across models indicates that LLMs cannot y...

M. O. Aydin, B. Coşkun, İbrahim Hamal · 0 citations
Aug 2026

Benchmarking large language models for multilingual health information delivery: a mixed-methods data analytics framework applied to vaccine communication in a middle-income setting

This framework provides a replicable approach to evaluating AI-generated health content across languages and contexts and identified five influential factors: local contextualisation and regulatory anchoring, structured presentation and readability, balance between completeness and accessibility, source credibility, an...

Jazlan Jamaluddin, Karleen Chong, Jin Ian Choong et al. · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

Safety and quality of public chatbots for lung cancer prognostic information: a comparative evaluation

Public-facing chatbots may support general patient education but should not replace individualized clinician-led prognostic communication as public-facing chatbots differed substantially in safety, reliability, communication quality, and readability.

Yan-Ru Jiang, Qian-Yun Wang, Liang Zheng et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.