ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating AI-Generated Patient Education Guides: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT and Deepseek.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence Applications in Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty: A Systematic Review of Preliminary Evidence.Obesity surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence to support clinical practice across the inpatient heart failure care pathway: a systematic review.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Review
- AI-Augmented Teach-Back in Dentistry: From Patient Education to Verified Clinical Understanding.Cureus · 2026Review
- Article
- Performance evaluation of large language models in bladder cancer patient education Q&A: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Accuracy, comprehensiveness and understandability of AI-generated answers to questions from people with COPD: the AIR-COPD Study.Respiratory research · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, including ChatGPT and DeepSeek, are becoming popular tools for generating patient education materials for chronic diseases. AI chatbots are useful as supplements to traditional counseling but lack the empathy and intuition of healthcare professionals, making them most effective when used alongside human therapists. The objective of the study is to compare ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek V3-generated patient educational guides for epilepsy, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methodology In this cross-sectional study, the standardized prompts for each disease were entered into ChatGPT and DeepSeek. The resultant texts were evaluated for readability, originality, quality, and suitability. Unpaired t-tests were performed to analyze statistical differences between tools. Results Both AI tools created patient education materials that had similar word and sentence counts, readability scores, reliability, and suitability in all areas, except for the similarity percentage, which was much higher in ChatGPT outputs (p=0.049). The readability scores indicated that both tools produced content that was above the recommended level for patient materials. Both tools resulted in high similarity indices that exceeded accepted academic thresholds. Reliability scores were moderate, and while understandability was high, actionability scores were suboptimal for both models. Conclusion The patient education materials provided by ChatGPT and DeepSeek are similar in nature, but neither satisfies recommended standards for readability, originality, or actionability. Both still need additional fine-tuning and human oversight to enhance accessibility, reliability, and practical utility in clinical settings.
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.