ObjectiveTo evaluate the quality differences in recommendations generated by large language models (LLMs) and clinical practitioners for sarcopenia-related questions. MethodsA sarcopenia knowledge base was constructed based on the latest domestic and international research and consensus guidelines. Using the Python environment, a locally deployed and sarcopenia-focused hybrid vertical LLM (referred to as LC) was implemented via LangChain-LLM. Eight fixed questions covering etiology, diagnosis, and prevention were selected, along with eight virtual patient cases. The evaluation team assessed the quality of answers generated by LC and written by clinical practitioners. Quantitative analysis was performed on the precision, recall, and F1 scores (harmonic mean of precision and recall) of treatment recommendations. ResultsThe responses were generally perceived as "possibly written by humans or AI", with a stronger inclination toward being AI-generated, although the accuracy of such judgments was low. Regarding answer quality attributes, LC's responses were superior to those of clinical practitioners in guideline consistency (P<0.01), exhibited similar acceptability (P>0.05), showed better practicality (P<0.05), and had a lower proportion of "1–2 errors" (P<0.05). Quantitative analysis of treatment recommendations indicated that LC and GPT-4.0 outperformed clinical practitioners in recall and F1 scores (P<0.05), with minimal differences between LC and GPT-4.0. ConclusionThe locally deployed sarcopenia-focused hybrid vertical LLM demonstrates high accuracy and applicability in addressing sarcopenia-related issues, outperforming clinical practitioners and exhibiting strong clinical decision-support capabilities.