ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Using artificial intelligence to generate medical literature for urology patients: a comparison of three different large language models.
Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Confidence without consensus? Human versus AI abstracts in urology.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Filling the information gap: a validated comparison of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude for penile cancer patient education.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Automating Clavien-Dindo classification with large language models in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an exploratory study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Evaluating a Guideline-Integrated Clinical Interaction Framework Vs a Standard Large Language Model Interaction for Dietary Recommendations in Recurrent Urolithiasis: In Silico Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Leveraging Large Language Models to Improve the Readability of German Online Medical Texts: Evaluation Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- From ChatGPT to DeepSeek: assessing the accuracy and readability of AI-generated erectile dysfunction responses.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of large language models in patient education for hyperthyroidism: A comparative study of chatgpt, gemini, and deepseek.Endocrine · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of the performance of the large language models DeepSeek-V3, DeepSeek-R1, open AI-O3 mini and open AI-O3 mini high in urology.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Patient consent in the modern era: Novel tools and practical considerations in urology.Current urology · 2025Article
- The Impact of Language Variability on Artificial Intelligence Performance in Regenerative Endodontics.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence and patient education.Current opinion in urology · 2025Review
- There are significant differences among artificial intelligence large language models when answering scientific questions.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Accuracy of large language models in interpreting urological clinical guidelines: a comparative study with expert evaluation.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLarge language models (LLMs) are a form of artificial intelligence (AI) that uses deep learning techniques to understand, summarize and generate content. The potential benefits of LLMs in healthcare is predicted to be immense. The objective of this study was to examine the quality of patient information leaflets (PILs) produced by 3 LLMs on urological topics.
methodsPrompts were created to generate PILs from 3 LLMs: ChatGPT-4, PaLM 2 (Google Bard) and Llama 2 (Meta) across four urology topics (circumcision, nephrectomy, overactive bladder syndrome, and transurethral resection of the prostate). PILs were evaluated using a quality assessment checklist. PIL readability was assessed by the Average Reading Level Consensus Calculator.
resultsPILs generated by PaLM 2 had the highest overall average quality score (3.58), followed by Llama 2 (3.34) and ChatGPT-4 (3.08). PaLM 2 generated PILs were of the highest quality in all topics except TURP and was the only LLM to include images. Medical inaccuracies were present in all generated content including instances of significant error. Readability analysis identified PaLM 2 generated PILs as the simplest (age 14-15 average reading level). Llama 2 PILs were the most difficult (age 16-17 average).
conclusionWhile LLMs can generate PILs that may help reduce healthcare professional workload, generated content requires clinician input for accuracy and inclusion of health literacy aids, such as images. LLM-generated PILs were above the average reading level for adults, necessitating improvement in LLM algorithms and/or prompt design. How satisfied patients are to LLM-generated PILs remains to be evaluated.
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.