ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2025
ChatGPT 3.5 Better Improves Comprehensibility of English, than Spanish, Generated Responses to Osteosarcoma Questions.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions of Large Language Models in Health Care Communication: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.