Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39668891›Full record

ArticleTransplantation direct2025

Evaluating Quality and Readability of AI-generated Information on Living Kidney Donation.

Vincenzo Villani, Hong-Hanh T Nguyen, Kumaran Shanmugarajah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transplantation direct, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. A Brief Review of Artificial Intelligence in Living Kidney Donation.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2025
    Review
  5. 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

3 authors.

Vincenzo VillaniDivision of Immunology and Organ Transplantation, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston, Houston, TX.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6078-9766
Hong-Hanh T NguyenLiver Specialists of Texas, Houston, TX.
Kumaran ShanmugarajahDepartment of Surgery, Transplantation Center, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3056-352X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The availability of high-quality and easy-to-read informative material is crucial to providing accurate information to prospective kidney donors. The quality of this information has been associated with the likelihood of proceeding with a living donation. Artificial intelligence-based large language models (LLMs) have recently become common instruments for acquiring information online, including medical information. The aim of this study was to assess the quality and readability of artificial intelligence-generated information on kidney donation. Methods: A set of 35 common donor questions was developed by the authors and used to interrogate 3 LLMs (ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and MedGPT). Answers were collected and independently evaluated using the CLEAR tool for (1) completeness, (2) lack of false information, (3) evidence-based information, (4) appropriateness, and (5) relevance. Readability was evaluated using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. Results: The interrater intraclass correlation was 0.784 (95% confidence interval, 0.716-0.814). Median CLEAR scores were ChatGPT 22 (interquartile range [IQR], 3.67), Google Gemini 24.33 (IQR, 2.33), and MedGPT 23.33 (IQR, 2.00). ChatGPT, Gemini, and MedGPT had mean Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Scores of 37.32 (SD = 10.00), 39.42 (SD = 13.49), and 29.66 (SD = 7.94), respectively. Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level assessment, ChatGPT had an average score of 12.29, Gemini had 10.63, and MedGPT had 13.21 ( Conclusions: Current LLM provides fairly accurate responses to common prospective living kidney donor questions; however, the generated information is complex and requires an advanced level of education. As LLMs become more relevant in the field of medical information, transplant providers should familiarize themselves with the shortcomings of these technologies.

Identifiers

PMID39668891
PMCPMC11634323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.