ArticleCureus2024
Analyzing the Effectiveness of AI-Generated Patient Education Materials: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT and Google Gemini.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 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
- A Clinician-Centered Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models in Patient Education: Integrating the Technology Acceptance Model and Medical Condition Regard Scale.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- The potential, perils and pitfalls of Artificial intelligence (AI) in Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART).Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2026Review
- Accuracy and Reliability of AI Models in Emergency Myocardial Infarction Education.Emergency medicine international · 2026Article
- Article
- Large Language Models Show Comparable Response Performance but Vary in Readability Regarding Patient Questions on Hip Arthroscopy.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Mapping artificial intelligence models in emergency medicine: A scoping review on artificial intelligence performance in emergency care and education.Turkish journal of emergency medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study aims to compare ChatGPT and Google Gemini-generated patient education guides regarding claustrophobia during MRI, mammography screening, and MR safe and unsafe items and the importance of knowing what items can be carried into an MR room.
methodsThe study utilized ChatGPT 3.5 and Google Gemini to create patient education guides concerning claustrophobia during MRI, mammography screening, and MR safe and unsafe items. A Flesch-Kincaid calculator was used to evaluate readability and ease of understanding. QuillBot (QuillBot, Inc., Chicago, USA) was used to generate a similarity score to evaluate possible plagiarism. In order to assess the scientific reliability of the AI-generated responses, we utilized a modified DISCERN score. R Studio 4.3.2 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) was used for statistical analyses, with unpaired t-tests used to determine statistical significance between variables.
resultsThe average number of words in ChatGPT and Google Gemini were 468.7±132.07 and 328.7±163.65, respectively. The mean number of sentences was 35.67±18.15 for ChatGPT and 30.33±12.22 for Google Gemini. Ease of readability for ChatGPT responses was 36.30±7.01 and for Google Gemini 46.77±4.96. The similarity scores for the ChatGPT responses were 0.50±0.62 and for Google Gemini 9.43±6.20. The reliability score was evaluated at 2.67±0.25 for ChatGPT and 2.67± 0.58 for Google Gemini.
conclusionThe AI generated by ChatGPT and Google Gemini had no statistically significant difference in regard to word count, average word per sentence, average syllables per word, grade level comprehension score, or scientific reliability. However, the ease score was significantly greater for the ChatGPT response compared to Google Gemini. In addition, the similarity score was much higher in Google Gemini than in ChatGPT responses.
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.