The paper has significant methodological and statistical weaknesses. The reliance on keyword-based analysis for diagnostic accuracy is overly simplistic and introduces bias. Comparisons with professionals are based on outdated studies rather than real-world clinical validation, potentially misrepresenting LLM capabilities. These issues call into question the reliability of the findings and the validity of the conclusions. I recommend that the authors address these concerns to enhance the study’s methodological rigor and ensure greater clarity and reliability in its conclusions.
