ArticleANZ journal of surgery2025
Evaluating the role of AI chatbots in patient education for abdominal aortic aneurysms: a comparison of ChatGPT and conventional resources.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 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.
- Evaluating ChatGPT's Effectiveness for Arabic Dry Mouth Patient Education.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- OpenAI's 'Deep Research' for the Generation of Comprehensive Referenced Medical Text: Uses and Cautions.ANZ journal of surgery · 2025Article
- How Well Do Different AI Language Models Inform Patients About Radiofrequency Ablation for Varicose Veins?Cureus · 2025Article
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
backgroundsAbdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) carry significant risks, yet patient understanding is often limited, with online resources typically low quality. ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, presents a new frontier in patient education, but concerns remain about misinformation. This study evaluates the quality of ChatGPT-generated patient information on AAA.
methodsEight patient questions on AAA were sourced from a reputable online resource for patient information funded by the Australian Government's Healthdirect Australia (HDA) website and input into ChatGPT's free (ChatGPT-4o mini) and paid (ChatGPT-4) models. A vascular surgeon evaluated response appropriateness. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid test. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) measured understandability and actionability, with responses scoring ≥75% for both considered high-quality.
resultsAll responses were deemed clinically appropriate. Mean response length was longer for ChatGPT than HDA. Readability was at a college level for ChatGPT, while HDA was at a 10th to 12th-grade level. One response was high-quality (generated by paid ChatGPT) with a PEMAT actionability score of ≥75%. Actionability scores were otherwise low across all sources with ChatGPT responses more likely to contain identifiable actions, although these were often not clearly presented. ChatGPT responses were marginally more understandable than HDA.
conclusionsChatGPT-generated information on AAA was appropriate and understandable, outperforming HDA in both aspects. However, AI responses are at a more advanced reading level and lack actionable instructions. AI chatbots show promise as supplemental tools for AAA patient education, but further refinement is needed to enhance their effectiveness in supporting informed decision-making.
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.