ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Comparison of artificial intelligence-generated and physician-generated patient education materials on early diabetic kidney disease.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of Commercially Available Large Language Models to Generate Information Leaflets on Post-Intensive Care Syndrome: Clinical Utility Assessment.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Large Language Models as Clinical Nutrition Decision Tools: Quantitative Bias and Guideline Deviation in Type 2 Diabetes Meal Planning.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-powered prediction of diabetic complications: from clinical data to molecular omics.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Factors associated with the experience of AI tools for creating health education materials: cross-sectional study using an extended UTAUT model.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Performance evaluation of mainstream large language models in autoimmune hepatitis patient education: a comparative study of readability, quality, and reliability.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of large language model-generated information in diabetes health patient education: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Assessing the information quality of AI-generated patient educational materials for diabetes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.