Back

Performance of Large Language Models as a Tool for Primary Care Consultations: Evaluation Study

Pascual, N.; Fernandez-Pichel, M.; Losada, D. E.; Garcia-Orosa, B.; Gude, F.; Costa Lathan, C.; Sueiro Justel, J.; Gomez Fontenla, A.; Lastra Perez, M.; Alonso Garcia,, F.

2026-05-04 health informatics
10.64898/2026.04.29.26352082 medRxiv
Show abstract

Since the release of the first ChatGPT model in 2022, large language models (LLMs) have evolved significantly, and an increasing number of users now turn to these generative information systems for inquiries as sensitive and consequential as those related to health. The primary objective is to identify the main strengths and weaknesses of generative AI systems when responding to information needs as critical as those arising in the health domain. The study was structured using a question-answer format, in which each question corresponded to a user query and each answer represented the output generated by a model in response. The study employed a human evaluation framework involving two distinct panels of clinical experts from different specialties. The evaluation criteria encompassed three dimensions: adherence to medical consensus; presence or absence of inappropriate or incorrect information; and the potential to cause harm to users. GPT-4o mini, Llama 3, and MedLlama 3 were selected as three representative systems for the experiments. This study presents a detailed analysis of the performance of widely used contemporary large language models in addressing common health-related queries posed by online users. The results reinforce the potential of LLMs as tools for online health information seeking among non-expert users. However, the performance limitations identified underscore the need for further studies to monitor the future development of these models. Among them, performance issues have been identified in areas where users may be more vulnerable, leading to the retrieval of clinically incorrect information, particularly in matters relating to rare diseases. Furthermore, it has been noted that these models can become trapped in obsolete medical knowledge due to continuous scientific progress.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
18.1%
2
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.4%
3
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.6%
4
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
47 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.4%
5
JMIR Medical Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
6
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
7
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 35%
4.0%
8
DIGITAL HEALTH
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
9
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.0%
10
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.2%
11
International Journal of Medical Informatics
26 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.1%
12
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 39%
2.7%
13
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
14
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
15
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
16
JAMIA Open
42 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.1%
17
Frontiers in Psychiatry
87 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
18
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 27%
1.1%
19
JMIR Formative Research
33 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
20
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
21
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
20 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
22
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
23
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
24
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
25
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.6%
26
Healthcare
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%