Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39898783›Full record

ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2025

ChatGPT 3.5 Better Improves Comprehensibility of English, than Spanish, Generated Responses to Osteosarcoma Questions.

Rosamaria Dias, Ashley Castan, Katie Gotoff, Yazan Kadkoy, Joseph Ippolito, Kathleen Beebe, Joseph Benevenia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Rosamaria DiasDepartment of Orthopaedics, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-5806-7986
Ashley CastanDepartment of Orthopaedics, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-0503-4957
Katie GotoffDepartment of Orthopaedics, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.
Yazan KadkoyDepartment of Orthopaedics, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.
Joseph IppolitoDepartment of Orthopaedics, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9211-5766
Kathleen BeebeDepartment of Orthopaedics, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.
Joseph BeneveniaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA.

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite adequate discussion and counseling in the office, inadequate health literacy or language barriers may make it difficult to follow instructions from a physician and access necessary resources. This may negatively impact survival outcomes. Most healthcare materials are written at a 10th grade level, while many patients read at an 8th grade level. Hispanic Americans comprise about 25% of the US patient population, while only 6% of physicians identify as bilingual. QUESTIONS/PURPOSE: (1) Does ChatGPT 3.5 provide appropriate responses to frequently asked patient questions that are sufficient for clinical practice and accurate in English and Spanish? (2) What is the comprehensibility of the responses provided by ChatGPT 3.5 and are these modifiable?

methodsTwenty frequently asked osteosarcoma patient questions, evaluated by two fellowship-trained musculoskeletal oncologists were input into ChatGPT 3.5. Responses were evaluated by two independent reviewers to assess appropriateness for clinical practice, and accuracy. Responses were graded using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test (FKGL). The responses were then input into ChatGPT 3.5 for a second time with the following command "Make text easier to understand". The same method was done in Spanish.

resultsAll responses generated were appropriate for a patient-facing informational platform. There was no difference in the Flesch Reading Ease Score between English and Spanish responses before the modification (p = 0.307) and with the Flesch-Kincaid grade level (p = 0.294). After modification, there was a statistically significant difference in comprehensibility between English and Spanish responses (p = 0.003 and p = 0.011).

conclusionIn both English and Spanish, none of the ChatGPT generated responses were found to be factually inaccurate. ChatGPT was able to modify responses upon follow-up with a simplified command. However, it was shown to be better at improving English responses than equivalent Spanish responses.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsGenerative Artificial IntelligenceLanguageOsteosarcomaPatient Education as TopicCommunication BarriersComprehensionHealth LiteracyPhysician-Patient RelationsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39898783
PMCPMC12232089

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.