ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
Validation of ChatGPT 3.5 as a Tool to Optimize Readability of Patient-facing Craniofacial Education Materials.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility evaluation of large language models in anesthesia-specific post-operative care instructions for total knee arthroplasty.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Automated Approaches of Text Simplification of Patient Education Materials: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Cleft Care: A Scoping Review.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Evaluation of surgical recommendation algorithms in hallux valgus cases using ChatGPT models: an artificial intelligence approach based on 50 simulated scenarios.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence as a surgical advisor before a DIEP breast reconstruction. A blinded comparative study of three large language models.JPRAS open · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Techniques and Health Literacy: A Systematic Review.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Review
- Assessing the Quality and Reliability of ChatGPT's Responses to Radiotherapy-Related Patient Queries: Comparative Study With GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Large Language Models for Intraoperative Decision Support in Plastic Surgery: A Comparison between ChatGPT-4 and Gemini.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Postoperative Care: Assessing Large Language Models for Patient Recommendations in Plastic Surgery.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Analysis of the Most Popular Online Ankle Fracture-Related Patient Education Materials.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Large language models in patient education: a scoping review of applications in medicine.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To address patient health literacy, the American Medical Association recommends that readability of patient education materials should not exceed a sixth grade reading level; the National Institutes of Health recommend no greater than an eigth-grade reading level. However, patient-facing materials in plastic surgery often remain at an above-recommended average reading level. The purpose of this study was to evaluate ChatGPT 3.5 as a tool for optimizing patient-facing craniofacial education materials. Methods: Eighteen patient-facing craniofacial education materials were evaluated for readability by a traditional calculator and ChatGPT 3.5. The resulting scores were compared. The original excerpts were then inputted to ChatGPT 3.5 and simplified by the artificial intelligence tool. The simplified excerpts were scored by the calculators. Results: The difference in scores for the original excerpts between the online calculator and ChatGPT 3.5 were not significant ( Conclusions: The use of ChatGPT 3.5 for simplification and readability analysis of patient-facing craniofacial materials is efficient and may help facilitate the conveyance of important health information. ChatGPT 3.5 rendered readability scores comparable to traditional readability calculators, in addition to excerpt-specific feedback. It was also able to simplify materials to the recommended grade levels. With human oversight, we validate this tool for readability analysis and simplification.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.