Background: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated a unique ability to generate clinically accurate responses to patient questions, in some cases outperforming physicians. However, little is known about how physician evaluations of such responses vary globally and by years in clinical practice. Objective: This study builds on prior work by comparing LLM generated and physician authored responses to patient questions using two general purpose LLMs in an international sample of physicians. Participants were asked to rank responses based on accuracy and responsiveness. Methods: We conducted a survey to assess physician preferences for AI- and human generated responses to patient questions from the r/AskDocs subreddit. Participants reviewed anonymized answers from ChatGPT 4.0, Meta.AI, and a verified physician, ranking each from best (1) to worst (3). We summarized respondent characteristics descriptively. The primary outcome was the mean rank of each response type. Sensitivity analyses included pairwise win proportions and full rank distribution visualizations. Results: Fifty-two physicians completed the survey, most of whom were male (78.8%), aged 25 to 34 (53.8%), based in North America (48.1%) or Africa (25.0%), and over half (53.8%) had less than 5 years of clinical experience. Across all regions, ChatGPT 4.0 and Meta.AI responses were preferred over physician authored responses, with ChatGPT 4.0 ranked highest in Africa, Asia, Asia Pacific, and North America, and Meta.AI slightly favored in Europe and the Americas. By years in practice, AI generated responses consistently outperformed physician responses, with ChatGPT 4.0 most preferred among those with less than 15 years of experience and showing the greatest advantage in the 10 to 15 year group. Conclusions: In our global sample, most physicians preferred LLM generated responses over those written by human contributors. However, preferences varied by geographic region and years in clinical practice, suggesting that both cultural and experiential factors shape physician attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence (AI). These preliminary findings highlight the need for larger, adequately powered studies to assess statistically significant differences and interactions across subgroups. Such research is essential to inform context specific strategies for integrating AI into patient facing communication.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Morehouse School of Medicine Institutional Review Board

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors