ArticleCureus2025
Readability of AI-Generated Patient Information Leaflets on Alzheimer's, Vascular Dementia, and Delirium.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Generative large language models in the clinical management of Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Pooled it
- Bridging the Health Literacy Gap for Patients With Oral Cancer: Readability Enhancement With AI Chatbots.Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Performance and Workup Efficiency of Large Language Models in Secondary Hypertension: A Blinded Comparative Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Quality of AI chatbot-generated information on hypersensitivity pneumonitis for clinical and patient use.Sarcoidosis, vasculitis, and diffuse lung diseases : official journal of WASOG · 2026Article
- Information leaflets vs artificial intelligence: comparing perceptions of stroke survivors and professionals in a mixed-methods study.European stroke journal · 2026Article
- Information quality, readability, and empathy of AI-generated public mental health information: a comparative evaluation of eight large language models.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Cross-platform evaluation of LLM-generated educational texts on cardiac myxoma: quality, readability, and actionability using network analysis and latent profile analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- The AI-educated patient.Digital healthArticle
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
Background Large language models such as ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Gemini are increasingly used to generate patient-facing medical content. While their factual accuracy has been explored, the readability of these outputs remains less well understood. Readability is a crucial component of health communication, particularly for older adults and those with lower health literacy. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the readability of patient information leaflets generated by three large language models - ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Gemini - on the topics of Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, and delirium, using five validated readability metrics. Materials and methods We conducted a cross-sectional comparative study of patient information leaflets generated by three large language models on the topics of Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, and delirium. Each model was prompted using identical queries, and the resulting texts were evaluated using five established readability metrics: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, and Automated Readability Index. Readability scores were compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests to identify statistically significant differences between models. Results ChatGPT consistently produced the most readable content, with the highest Flesch Reading Ease scores and the lowest grade-level indices. DeepSeek generated text that was markedly more complex and less accessible. Gemini performed intermediately, sometimes matching ChatGPT in specific indices but not consistently across all metrics. The difference in Flesch Reading Ease scores between models was statistically significant (H = 7.20, p = 0.027). Other metrics showed trends that approached significance. Conclusions There are meaningful differences in the readability of patient information generated by different large language models. ChatGPT appears to produce content that is more suitable for patient understanding, particularly in the context of older adult care. These findings highlight the need for careful evaluation of readability when using generative AI in clinical communication. Future research should incorporate expert review of content accuracy and appropriateness alongside readability.
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.