ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2025
An artificial intelligence perspective on geriatric syndromes: assessing the information accuracy and readability of ChatGPT.
Article in European geriatric medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Research on ChatGPT generated text detection model based on phonetic feature extraction and semantic features.Scientific reports · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeChatGPT, a comprehensive language processing model, provides the opportunity for supportive and professional interactions with patients. However, its use to address patients' frequently asked questions (FAQs) and the readability of the text generated by ChatGPT remain unexplored, particularly in geriatrics. We identified the FAQs about common geriatric syndromes and assessed the accuracy and readability of the responses provided by ChatGPT.
methodsTwo geriatricians with extensive knowledge and experience in geriatric syndromes independently reviewed the 28 responses provided by ChatGPT. The accuracy of the responses generated by ChatGPT was categorized on a rating scale from 0 (harmful) to 4 (excellent) based on current guidelines and approaches. The readability of the text generated by ChatGPT was assessed by administering two tests: the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FKRE) and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL).
resultsChatGPT-generated responses with an overall mean accuracy score of 88% (3.52/4). Responses generated for sarcopenia diagnosis and depression treatment in older adults had the lowest accuracy scores (2.0 and 2.5, respectively). The mean FKRE score of the texts was 25.2, while the mean FKGL score was 14.5.
conclusionThe accuracy scores of the responses generated by ChatGPT were high in most common geriatric syndromes except for sarcopenia diagnosis and depression treatment. Moreover, the text generated by ChatGPT was very difficult to read and best understood by college graduates. ChatGPT may reduce the uncertainty many patients face. Nevertheless, it remains advisable to consult with subject matter experts when undertaking consequential decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40257746What 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.