## 3 Results  
We present the means and standard deviations of the Persona perception dimensions, i.e., dimensions of Clarity, Completeness, Consistency, Credibility, Empathy, and Likability (separately for each Persona) in Tables 1 and 2, while the correlations between these dimensions are presented in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S1-S6). All the correlations between the observed dimensions were positive, and most were significant, exhibiting intermediately strong relationships. Overall, the inter-rater reliability was excellent in a clinical, ICC(2, 63) = 0.92, 95% CI [0.90, 0.93] and educational context, ICC(2, 64) = 0.92, 95% CI [0.91, 0.94], pointing towards a high agreement of participants in their evaluations of the Personas. Next, we performed multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) for each Persona separately using [PERSON]'s trace to test for the differences in the perception of dimensions among the variants of Persona created with different methodologies. The results showed a significant effect of different Persona variants on perception dimensions in the case of the Patient Persona, V = 0.125, F(18, 756735) = 1822.161, \(p<0.001\), \({\rm{np}}^{2}\) = 0.042; the Principal Persona, V = 0.251, F(18, 768747) = 3903.271, \(p<0.001\), \({\rm{np}}^{2}\) = 0.084; the Student Persona, V = 0.209, F(18, 747) = 3.103, \(p<0.001\), \({\rm{np}}^{2}\) = 0.070; and the Teacher Persona, V = 0.212, F(18, 747) = 3.149, \(p<0.001\), \({\rm{np}}^{2}\) = 0.071. On the other hand, the effect of different Persona variants on the perception dimensions was not significant for the Dietitian Persona, V = 0.065, F(18, 735) = 0.906, \(p=0.571\), \({\rm{np}}^{2}\) = 0.022; and the Pediatric Persona, V = 0.088, F(18, 735) = 1.230, \(p=0.230\), \({\rm{np}}^{2}\) = 0.029. The significant MANOVA results for the Patient, Principal, Student, and Teacher Personas were followed up with ANOVA tests to test for specific differences in Persona variants per each perception dimension, and where they revealed significant differences in the Persona perception dimensions, this was followed up with pairwise comparisons. In the clinical context, as the MANOVA results revealed significant differences in the Persona perception dimensions only for the Patient Persona, these were followed up with ANOVA tests (Table 2). These tests revealed significant differences in the perception of the Patient Persona, where the effects of the Persona description variants were significant for all the Persona perception dimensions. Significant ANOVA tests for the Patient Persona were followed up with pairwise comparisons, reported in the Supplementary Materials (Table S7). All the comparisons, i.e., between each combination of two Persona description variants within each of the Personaperception dimensions, were significant, except for the Bard and Llama variants in the Completeness dimension, and the ChatGPT and QUAL (qualitatively developed) variants in the Credibility dimension. These post-hoc pairwise comparisons revealed some consistent results among the Persona perception dimensions for the Patient Persona (Figure 2). The Bard variant of this Persona was most favorably perceived on all the Persona perception dimensions, except for the Credibility dimensions, where there was no significant difference between the Bard and Llama variants, and the Completeness dimension, where the Llama variant of the Patient Persona was not significantly differently perceived. The second-most favorable perceived variant of the Patient Persona dimension was the one produced by Llama, except for the Completeness dimension, where the Bard variant was equally well perceived. It is interesting to note that the qualitatively developed variant of the Patient Persona was significantly least favorably perceived on all the Persona perception dimensions. In the educational context, the MANOVA results revealed significant differences in the overall perception of all three evaluated Personas, i.e., Principal, Student, and Teacher Personas.