Escrever um comentário

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction points out why the research has to be done. It tells why the set of research questions came into consideration originally. It gives an overview of the complete research done including the results of the tests performed and the conclusion. Thus, telling about the current trends of using AI to answer Autism questions, it tells about the pitfalls of it and why the research was necessary to be done.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Highly appropriate

The methods are well suited for the research, keeping in mind all the parameters required so that the research questions can be well answered. Data Analysis done using a combination of mixed design ANOVAs and Multi level modeling to evaluate the effects of the LLMs was highly resourceful. Including the different languages for basis of input of questions was important. And checking the responses by different researchers was crucial to avoid bias errors. Thus, efficient way of carrying out the research.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Highly supported

The conclusion is thorough and support the data, as according to the data, the advantages of Chatgpt over Gemini and Copilot are mentioned. But, also the drawbacks of each of the AI models is mentioned accepting the data results. Thus, proving that the research questions were answered and how the data results help in coming to a fair conclusion of the impact of the research on further practice of doctors. All this is mentioned in the conclusion, not exaggerating too much which is not mentioned in the data.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Highly appropriate and clear

The data presentations are well suited, as tables are included to explain the variables used in the research and their interrelation.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Very clearly

The authors have clearly explained the results of the research, the advantages of Chatgpt over Gemini and Copilot after doing the thorough analysis. But, also mentioned the drawbacks of all three AI models, as I Mentioned earlier. After concluding the drawbacks, it is mentioned how the findings can be helpful for doctors to explain patients on how AI should be used to answer health related questions. And, how AI still has gaps in answering those questions.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Somewhat likely

The preprint only confirms the findings of the research done, but still there are a lot of unanswered questions about AI and its gaps, and if any improvements can be done on the models.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

I think the language of the preprint is well said, no impact is seen on understanding the context of the preprint.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, it’s of high quality

Yes, the preprint is really helpful as a general Insight for others on AI models and how they work in answering Health care questions.

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, as it is

I don't think any changes are necessary as such. So, can be reviewed by an editor.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.