ArticleCureus2024
An Observational Study to Evaluate Readability and Reliability of AI-Generated Brochures for Emergency Medical Conditions.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 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
- The doctors of the future: the competition of ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-4 omni, and Gemini 2.0 Flash in andrology.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Compare the features of several mainstream AI software programmes: explore their accuracy and repeatability in solving queries related to pancreatic cysts.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Reliability of AI Tools in Generating Patient Education Brochures for Bariatric Surgery: An Observational Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessing the Suitability of ChatGPT and DeepSeek AI for Patient Education on Common Rheumatological Disorders.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
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
Introduction The study assesses the readability of AI-generated brochures for common emergency medical conditions like heart attack, anaphylaxis, and syncope. Thus, the study aims to compare the AI-generated responses for patient information guides of common emergency medical conditions using ChatGPT and Google Gemini. Methodology Brochures for each condition were created by both AI tools. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Calculator, evaluating word count, sentence count and ease of understanding. Reliability was measured using the Modified DISCERN Score. The similarity between AI outputs was determined using Quillbot. Statistical analysis was performed with R (v4.3.2). Results ChatGPT and Gemini produced brochures with no statistically significant differences in word count (p= 0.2119), sentence count (p=0.1276), readability (p=0.3796), or reliability (p=0.7407). However, ChatGPT provided more detailed content with 32.4% more words (582.80 vs. 440.20) and 51.6% more sentences (67.00 vs. 44.20). In addition, Gemini's brochures were slightly easier to read with a higher ease score (50.62 vs. 41.88). Reliability varied by topic with ChatGPT scoring higher for Heart Attack (4 vs. 3) and Choking (3 vs. 2), while Google Gemini scored higher for Anaphylaxis (4 vs. 3) and Drowning (4 vs. 3), highlighting the need for topic-specific evaluation. Conclusions Although AI-generated brochures from ChatGPT and Gemini are comparable in readability and reliability for patient information on emergency medical conditions, this study highlights that there is no statistically significant difference in the responses generated by the two AI tools.
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.