ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026
Assessing Readability of Skin Cancer Screening Resources: A Comparison of Online Websites and ChatGPT Responses.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2026. 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.
- Decoupled quality and readability in skin cancer education from large language models.Frontiers in public health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective communication is essential for promoting appropriate skin cancer screening for the public. This study compares the readability of online resources and ChatGPT-generated responses related to the topic of skin cancer screening. We analyzed 60 websites and responses to five questions from ChatGPT-4.0 using five readability metrics: the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, SMOG Index, Gunning Fog Index, and Coleman-Liau Index. Results showed that both websites and ChatGPT responses exceeded the recommended sixth grade reading level for health-related information. No significant differences were found between the readability for university-hosted versus non-university-hosted websites. However, across all readability metrics, ChatGPT responses were significantly more difficult to read. These findings highlight the need to enhance the accessibility of health information by aligning content with recommended literacy levels. Future efforts should focus on developing patient-centered, publicly accessible materials and refining AI-generated content to improve public understanding and encourage proactive engagement in skin cancer screenings.
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.