ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Large language models and bariatric surgery patient education: a comparative readability analysis of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Bard, and online institutional resources.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Large language models in obesity: a systematic review.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of the readability of ChatGPT and Bard in medical communication: a meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation of Large Language Model-Based Chatbots for Dental Trauma Management: A Comparative Study Based on Accuracy, Consistency and Information Quality.Australian endodontic journal : the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc · 2026Article
- Utility of Large Language Models for Congenital Microtia Reconstruction Education: Comparison of the Performance of Claude, GPT, and Gemini.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Patients prefer ChatGPT to institutional websites for questions on radiation-based imaging exams: international mixed-methods study.Radiology advances · 2026Article
- Accuracy and Knowledge Base Evaluation of ChatGPT-4o, Gemini-2.0-Flash, and DeepSeek-V3 in Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: an Expert-Rated Blinded Study.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparing the Readability and Content Quality of Online Patient Education Materials and ChatGPT-Generated Patient Education Materials for Breast Cancer Surgery and Reconstruction.Archives of plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Performance of Large Language Models in Metabolic Bariatric Surgery: a Comparative Study.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- Leveraging Large Language Models to Improve the Readability of German Online Medical Texts: Evaluation Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Article
- Quality, readability, and clinical-risk signals of default public-interface LLM responses to vascular and perioperative patient questions: a cross-sectional snapshot.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Comparison of AI chatbot-generated and web-based health information on the effects of radiation in fetuses and children.Journal of rural medicine : JRM · 2026Article
- AI-generated explanations in kidney transplantation: accuracy vs. readability and implications for patient education.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Reliability of AI Tools in Generating Patient Education Brochures for Bariatric Surgery: An Observational Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- The use of artificial intelligence in healthcare as perceived by the citizens and patients: a narrative review of the literature.European journal of public health · 2025Review
- Can co-designed educational interventions help consumers think critically about asking ChatGPT health questions? Results from a randomised-controlled trial.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Perspectives of Patients Seeking Bariatric Surgery: The Impact of Early Patient-Provider Communication on Bariatric Surgery Utilization.Obesity surgery · 2025Article
- Chatbots versus retina specialists in answering real-world retina questions.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Large Language Model and Physician-Generated Responses in Bariatric Patient Inquiries: Assessing the Accuracy and Patient Satisfaction.Obesity surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe readability of online bariatric surgery patient education materials (PEMs) often surpasses the recommended 6th grade level. Large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT and Bard, have the potential to revolutionize PEM delivery. We aimed to evaluate the readability of PEMs produced by U.S. medical institutions compared to LLMs, as well as the ability of LLMs to simplify their responses.
methodsResponses to frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to bariatric surgery were gathered from top-ranked health institutions. FAQ responses were also generated from GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Bard. LLMs were then prompted to improve the readability of their initial responses. The readability of institutional responses, initial LLM responses, and simplified LLM responses were graded using validated readability formulas. Accuracy and comprehensiveness of initial and simplified LLM responses were also compared.
resultsResponses to 66 FAQs were included. All institutional and initial LLM responses had poor readability, with average reading levels ranging from 9th grade to college graduate. Simplified responses from LLMs had significantly improved readability, with reading levels ranging from 6th grade to college freshman. When comparing simplified LLM responses, GPT-4 responses demonstrated the highest readability, with reading levels ranging from 6th to 9th grade. Accuracy was similar between initial and simplified responses from all LLMs. Comprehensiveness was similar between initial and simplified responses from GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. However, 34.8% of Bard's simplified responses were graded as less comprehensive compared to initial.
conclusionOur study highlights the efficacy of LLMs in enhancing the readability of bariatric surgery PEMs. GPT-4 outperformed other models, generating simplified PEMs from 6th to 9th grade reading levels. Unlike GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, Bard's simplified responses were graded as less comprehensive. We advocate for future studies examining the potential role of LLMs as dynamic and personalized sources of PEMs for diverse patient populations of all literacy levels.
Indexed as
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.