Observational studyMedicine2024
Assessment of readability, reliability, and quality of ChatGPT®, BARD®, Gemini®, Copilot®, Perplexity® responses on palliative care.
Observational study in Medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07111845 (Human Doctors or AI), which is not on this map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Human Doctors or AI: Evaluating Patient Satisfaction in Urinary Stone Disease Consultations
Who cites it
51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of the readability of ChatGPT and Bard in medical communication: a meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Quality and Readability of Four AI Chatbots Answering Search-Derived Patient Questions About Primary Aldosteronism: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Performance of large language models in mitral valve surgery patient education: a comparative analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Performance of AI chatbots in answering questions on tooth bleaching: a multilingual comparative study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Feasibility evaluation of large language models in anesthesia-specific post-operative care instructions for total knee arthroplasty.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Performance of ChatGPT-4o in Providing Information on Pediatric Inborn Errors of Immunity: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language model`s performance in answering principles of health course questions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT-5-generated clinical management recommendations for HPV infection and cervical premalignant lesions: a scenario-based expert assessment study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Clinical Application of Artificial Intelligence in Anesthesiology: A Multicenter Retrospective Comparison Between Human Anesthetic Decisions and Algorithmic Recommendations in Non-Cardiac Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the performance of five large language models in generating patient educational content for pediatric cardiothoracic procedures: a comparative study.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Observational
- Evaluating Large Language Models for Diagnostic Accuracy and Health Information Quality in Oral Mucosal Diseases.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Accuracy, Usefulness, and Safety of ChatGPT for Caregivers Seeking Information on Congenital Muscular Torticollis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of different artificial intelligence tools' answers to questions related to early intervention: ChatGPT versus Gemini.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Evaluating search-enabled large language model interfaces for mpox public health consultation: a guideline-based comparative study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Utility of large language models as information tools for nursing care in gout: a comparative study of DeepSeek and ChatGPT.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence Chatbots as Sources of Cancer Pain Information: A Comparative Evaluation of Quality, Transparency, and Readability.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Article
- Performance of large language models in reporting oral health concerns and side effects in head and neck cancer: a comparative study.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Article
- The impact of language differences on the readability, quality, and reliability of information provided by artificial intelligence chatbots regarding vital pulp therapy: a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 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
There is no study that comprehensively evaluates data on the readability and quality of "palliative care" information provided by artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots ChatGPT®, Bard®, Gemini®, Copilot®, Perplexity®. Our study is an observational and cross-sectional original research study. In our study, AI chatbots ChatGPT®, Bard®, Gemini®, Copilot®, and Perplexity® were asked to present the answers of the 100 questions most frequently asked by patients about palliative care. Responses from each 5 AI chatbots were analyzed separately. This study did not involve any human participants. Study results revealed significant differences between the readability assessments of responses from all 5 AI chatbots (P < .05). According to the results of our study, when different readability indexes were evaluated holistically, the readability of AI chatbot responses was evaluated as Bard®, Copilot®, Perplexity®, ChatGPT®, Gemini®, from easy to difficult (P < .05). In our study, the median readability indexes of each of the 5 AI chatbots Bard®, Copilot®, Perplexity®, ChatGPT®, Gemini® responses were compared to the "recommended" 6th grade reading level. According to the results of our study answers of all 5 AI chatbots were compared with the 6th grade reading level, statistically significant differences were observed in the all formulas (P < .001). The answers of all 5 artificial intelligence robots were determined to be at an educational level well above the 6th grade level. The modified DISCERN and Journal of American Medical Association scores was found to be the highest in Perplexity® (P < .001). Gemini® responses were found to have the highest Global Quality Scale score (P < .001). It is emphasized that patient education materials should have a readability level of 6th grade level. Of the 5 AI chatbots whose answers about palliative care were evaluated, Bard®, Copilot®, Perplexity®, ChatGPT®, Gemini®, their current answers were found to be well above the recommended levels in terms of readability of text content. Text content quality assessment scores are also low. Both the quality and readability of texts should be brought to appropriate recommended limits.
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.