Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models in Hemodialysis Vascular Access: ChatGPT-5, Gemini-2.5, and DeepSeek-V3
Methods: Twenty-five frequently asked patient questions were compiled from literature, educational materials, and expert input. Each question was submitted to the three LLMs in standardized sessions, and answers were anonymized. Four cardiovascular surgeons independently evaluated responses in a blinded manner using 5-point Likert scales for accuracy, clarity, and scientificity. Statistical analyses compared model performances.
Results: DeepSeek-V3 provided significantly responses with a higher word count and achieved higher scientific depth scores compared to ChatGPT-5 and Gemini-2.5 (P<0.01). Accuracy scores showed ChatGPT-5 demonstrated significantly lower than both Gemini-2.5 and DeepSeek-V3 (P<0.001). No significant differences were observed among models regarding clarity. Overall, DeepSeek achieved the highest mean scores across all criteria.
Conclusions: DeepSeek-V3 demonstrated superior scientific depth and overall reliability, whereas ChatGPT-5 showed relative weaknesses in accuracy. The comparable clarity across models highlights LLMs’ potential as supportive tools for patient education. Future studies should further validate these tools in real-world clinical settings and define appropriate safeguards for their use.
1. Jager KJ, Kovesdy C, Langham R, Rosenberg M, Jha V, Zoccali C. A single number for advocacy and communication-worldwide more than 850 million individuals have kidney diseases. Kidney Int. 2019;96(5):1048-1050. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2019.07.012.
2. Lok CE, Huber TS, Lee T, et al.; National Kidney Foundation. KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Vascular Access: 2019 Update. Am J Kidney Dis. 2020 Apr;75(4 Suppl 2):S1-S164. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.12.001.
3. Schmidli J, Widmer MK, Basile C, et al., ESVS Guidelines Committee, EEVS Guidelines Reviewers. Editor's Choice - Vascular Access: 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;55(6):757-818. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2018.02.001.
4. Paasche-Orlow MK, Wolf MS. The causal pathways linking health literacy to health outcomes. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31 Suppl 1:19-26. doi:10.5555/ajhb.2007.31.supp.S19.
5. Skoumalova I, Madarasova Geckova A, Rosenberger J, et al. Health Literacy and Change in Health-Related Quality of Life in Dialysed Patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(2):620. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19020620.
6. Zavacka M, Skoumalova I, Geckova AM, et al. Does Health Literacy of Hemodialyzed Patients Predict the Type of Their Vascular Access? A Cross-Sectional Study on Slovak Hemodialyzed Population. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(2):675. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17020675.
7. Singh P, Goyal L, Mallick DC, et al. Artificial Intelligence in Nephrology: Clinical Applications and Challenges. Kidney Med. 2024;7(1):100927. doi:10.1016/j.xkme.2024.100927.
8. Ji Z, Lee N, Frieske R, et al. Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation. ACM Comput Surv. 2023;55(12):248. doi: 10.1145/3571730.
9. Yeo YH, Samaan JS, Ng WH, et al. Assessing the performance of ChatGPT in answering questions regarding cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2023;29(3):721-732. doi: 10.3350/cmh.2023.0089.
10. Akçay O, Öztürk Ö, Acar T, Gürsoy S. Accuracy and Reliability of ChatGPT in Answering Patient Questions About Lung Cancer and Its Surgery: An Expert Panel Evaluation by Thoracic Surgeons. J Cancer Educ. 2025 Jul 4. doi: 10.1007/s13187-025-02682-3.
11. Almagazzachi A, Mustafa A, Eighaei Sedeh A, et al. Generative Artificial Intelligence in Patient Education: ChatGPT Takes on Hypertension Questions. Cureus. 2024;16(2):e53441. doi: 10.7759/cureus.53441.
12. Sivaramakrishnan G, Almuqahwi M, Ansari S, Lubbad M, Alagamawy E, Sridharan K. Assessing the power of AI: a comparative evaluation of large language models in generating patient education materials in dentistry. BDJ Open. 2025;11(1):59. doi: 10.1038/s41405-025-00349-1.
13. Sallam M. ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns. Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11(6):887. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11060887.
14. Huang Y, Gomaa A, Semrau S, et al. Benchmarking ChatGPT-4 on a radiation oncology in-training exam and Red Journal Gray Zone cases: potentials and challenges for ai-assisted medical education and decision making in radiation oncology. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1265024. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1265024.
15. Swisher AR, Wu AW, Liu GC, Lee MK, Carle TR, Tang DM. Enhancing Health Literacy: Evaluating the Readability of Patient Handouts Revised by ChatGPT's Large Language Model. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2024;171(6):1751-1757. doi: 10.1002/ohn.927.
16. Eid K, Eid A, Wang D, Raiker RS, Chen S, Nguyen J. Optimizing Ophthalmology Patient Education via ChatBot-Generated Materials: Readability Analysis of AI-Generated Patient Education Materials and The American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Patient Brochures. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024;40(2):212-216. doi: 10.1097/IOP.0000000000002549.

Copyright (c) 2026 The European Research Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Downloads
Article Information
- Article Type Research Article
- Submitted February 21, 2026
- Published March 14, 2026
- Issue 2026: Online First
- Section Research Article