Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40331140›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025

Comparison of artificial intelligence-generated and physician-generated patient education materials on early diabetic kidney disease.

Miaomiao Cheng, Qi Zhang, Hua Liang, Yanan Wang, Jun Qin, Lei Gong, Sha Wang, Luyao Li, Xiaoyan Xiao

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Diagnostic interpretation of pure tone audiograms by multimodal LLMs: A comparative study of ChatGPT-5.0 and Gemini 2.5.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors.

Miaomiao Cheng *Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Department of Nephrology, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Qi Zhang *Healthcare Big Data Research Institute, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Hua LiangQilu Hospital of Shandong University, Department of Nephrology, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Yanan WangQilu Hospital of Shandong University, Department of Nephrology, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Jun QinQilu Hospital of Shandong University, Department of Endocrinology, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Lei GongQilu Hospital of Shandong University, Department of Endocrinology, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Sha WangQilu Hospital of Shandong University, Department of Nephrology, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Luyao LiQilu Hospital of Shandong University, Department of Nephrology, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Xiaoyan XiaoQilu Hospital of Shandong University, Department of Nephrology, Jinan, Shandong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a common and serious complication of diabetes mellitus and has become the most important cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). In light of the rising prevalence of diabetes, there is a growing imperative for the early detection and intervention of DKD. With the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, its potential applications in patient education are receiving increasing attention, especially large language models (LLMs). The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of LLMs-generated patient education materials (PEMs) for early DKD and to explore its feasibility in patient education. Methods: Four LLMs (ERNIE Bot 4.0, GPT-4o, ChatGLM4, and ChatGPT-o1) were selected for this study to generate PEMs. Among them, ERNIE Bot 4.0, GPT-4o, and ChatGLM4 generated 2 versions of PEMs based on American Diabetes Association(ADA) guidelines and without ADA guidelines, respectively. ChatGPT-o1 only generated a PEM without ADA guidelines. An experienced physician wrote a PEM based on ADA guidelines. All materials were assessed using a Likert scale which covered the dimensions of accuracy, completeness, safety, and patient comprehensibility. A total of 7 medical experts (including nephrologists and endocrinologists) and 50 diabetic patients were invited to evaluate the study. We recorded basic information on the patient evaluators. Results: Experts evaluated PEMs from ERNIE Bot 4.0, GPT-4o, ChatGLM4, and ChatGPT-o1, plus physician-sourced PEM. Results showed ERNIE Bot 4.0's non-guideline PEM and physician-sourced PEM were the top two. Patient assessments of the 2 top-scoring PEMs found that the ERNIE Bot 4.0's non-guideline PEM performed as well as, if not slightly better than, the physician-sourced PEM in terms of patient comprehensibility, completeness, and safety. In addition, the non-guideline-based PEM was preferred for patients with a history of diabetes longer than 5 years and for patients with proteinuria. Surprisingly, GPT-4o and ChatGLM4's non-guideline PEMs outperformed guideline-based ones. Conclusion: The LLMs-sourced PEMs, especially the ERNIE Bot 4.0's non-guideline PEM for early DKD, performed comparably to the physician-sourced PEM in terms of accuracy, completeness, safety, and patient comprehensibility, and exerted a high degree of feasibility. AI may show the potential for broader applications in patient education in the near future.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDiabetic NephropathiesPatient Education as TopicPhysiciansAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedartificial intelligencediabetesdiabetic kidney diseaselarge language modelspatient education

Identifiers

PMID40331140
PMCPMC12052532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.