ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2025
Comparing answers of ChatGPT and Google Gemini to common questions on benign anal conditions.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Safety and Reliability of Large Language Models in Answering Hemorrhoid-Related Patient Questions: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of AI Chatbot Responses to a Standardized Patient Query on Myelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein Antibody-Associated Disease: Cross-Sectional Content Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- 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
introductionChatbots have been increasingly used as a source of patient education. This study aimed to compare the answers of ChatGPT-4 and Google Gemini to common questions on benign anal conditions in terms of appropriateness, comprehensiveness, and language level.
methodsEach chatbot was asked a set of 30 questions on hemorrhoidal disease, anal fissures, and anal fistulas. The responses were assessed for appropriateness, comprehensiveness, and reference provision. The assessments were made by three subject experts who were unaware of the name of the chatbots. The language level of the chatbot answers was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score and grade level.
resultsOverall, the answers provided by both models were appropriate and comprehensive. The answers of Google Gemini were more appropriate, comprehensive, and supported by references compared with the answers of ChatGPT. In addition, the agreement among the assessors on the appropriateness of Google Gemini answers was higher, attesting to a higher consistency. ChatGPT had a significantly higher Flesh-Kincaid grade level than Google Gemini (12.3 versus 10.6, p = 0.015), but a similar median Flesh-Kincaid Ease score.
conclusionsThe answers of Google Gemini to questions on common benign anal conditions were more appropriate and comprehensive, and more often supported with references, than the answers of ChatGPT. The answers of both chatbots were at grade levels higher than the 6th grade level, which may be difficult for nonmedical individuals to comprehend.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39864043What 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.