ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluating AI-based breastfeeding chatbots: quality, readability, and reliability analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiences of Primiparous Mothers Using ChatGPTfor Breastfeeding and Infant Care.Maternal & child nutrition · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Arabic-Language AI Chatbot Responses to Migraine-Related Questions: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Multidimensional Evaluation of AI-Generated Patient Information on Cone Beam-Computed Tomography.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Assessment of patient information quality provided by artificial intelligence-based large language models on cryptorchidism: a comparison of ChatGPT-5, Gemini, and Grok.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the readability, quality, and accuracy of AI chatbot responses to questions about deleterious oral habits.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Assessing the Suitability of ChatGPT and DeepSeekAI for Parent's Education on Common Pediatric Respiratory Diseases.Cureus · 2025Article
- Benchmarking AI Chatbots for Maternal Lactation Support: A Cross-Platform Evaluation of Quality, Readability, and Clinical Accuracy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, expectant and breastfeeding mothers commonly use various breastfeeding-related social media applications and websites to seek breastfeeding-related information. At the same time, AI-based chatbots-such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot-have become increasingly prevalent on these platforms (or on dedicated websites), providing automated, user-oriented breastfeeding guidance.
aimThe goal of our study is to understand the relative performance of three AI-based chatbots: ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot, by evaluating the quality, reliability, readability, and similarity of the breastfeeding information they provide.
methodsTwo researchers evaluated the information provided by three different AI-based breastfeeding chatbots: ChatGPT version 3.5, Gemini, and Copilot. A total of 50 frequently asked questions about breastfeeding were identified and used in the study, divided into two categories (Baby-Centered Questions and Mother-Centered Questions), and evaluated using five scoring criteria, including the Quality Information Provision for Patients (EQIP) scale, the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) scale, the Similarity Index (SI), the Modified Dependability Scoring System (mDISCERN), and the Global Quality Scale (GQS).
resultsThe evaluation of AI chatbots' answers showed statistically significant differences across all criteria (p < 0.05). Copilot scored highest on the EQIP, SMOG, and SI scales, while Gemini excelled in mDISCERN and GQS evaluations. No significant difference was found between Copilot and Gemini for mDISCERN and GQS scores. All three chatbots demonstrated high reliability and quality, though their readability required university-level education. Notably, ChatGPT displayed high originality, while Copilot exhibited the greatest similarity in responses.
conclusionAI chatbots provide reliable answers to breastfeeding questions, but the information can be hard to understand. While more reliable than other online sources, their accuracy and usability are still in question. Further research is necessary to facilitate the integration of advanced AI in healthcare.
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.