Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38472531›Full record

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.

Nitin Srinivasan, Jamil S Samaan, Nithya D Rajeev, Mmerobasi U Kanu, Yee Hui Yeo, Kamran Samakar

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Large language models in obesity: a systematic review.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Chatbots versus retina specialists in answering real-world retina questions.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Nitin SrinivasanDivision of Upper GI and General Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of USC, 1510 San Pablo St HCC 3, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA.
Jamil S SamaanKarsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Nithya D RajeevDivision of Upper GI and General Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of USC, 1510 San Pablo St HCC 3, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA.
Mmerobasi U KanuDivision of Upper GI and General Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of USC, 1510 San Pablo St HCC 3, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA.
Yee Hui YeoKarsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Kamran SamakarDivision of Upper GI and General Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of USC, 1510 San Pablo St HCC 3, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. kamran.samakar@med.usc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-1710-6245

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Bariatric SurgeryComprehensionPatient Education as TopicHealth LiteracyHumansInternetLanguageUnited StatesBardBariatric surgeryGPT-3.5GPT-4Large language modelsReadability

Identifiers

PMID38472531
PMCPMC11078810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.