ArticleEndocrine2025
Large language models: unlocking new potential in patient education for thyroid eye disease.
Article in Endocrine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- What has changed in thyroid eye disease in the last five years (2020-2025).European thyroid journal · 2026Review
- Article
- Advances in the application of artificial intelligence in ophthalmic education and clinical training.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to evaluate the performance of three large language models (LLMs) in generating patient education materials (PEMs) for thyroid eye disease (TED), intending to improve patients' understanding and awareness of TED.
methodsWe evaluated the performance of ChatGPT-4o, Claude 3.5, and Gemini 1.5 in generating PEMs for TED by designing different prompts. First, we produced TED patient educational brochures based on prompts A and B, respectively. Prompt B asked to make the content simple for sixth graders. Next, we designed two responses to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about TED: standard responses and simplified responses, where the simplified responses were optimized through specific prompts. All generated content was systematically evaluated based on dimensions such as quality, understandability, actionability, accuracy, and empathy. The readability of the content was analyzed using the online tool Readable.com (including FKGL: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and SMOG: Simple Measure of Gobbledygook).
resultsBoth prompt A and prompt B generated brochures that performed excellently in terms of quality (DISCERN ≥ 4), understandability (PEMAT Understandability ≥70%), accuracy (Score ≥4), and empathy (Score ≥4), with no significant differences between the two. However, both failed to meet the "actionable" standard (PEMAT Actionability <70%). Regarding readability, prompt B was easier to understand than prompt A, although the optimized version of prompt B still did not reach the ideal readability level. Additionally, a comparative analysis of FAQs about TED on Google using LLMs showed that, regardless of whether the response was standard or simplified, the LLM's performance outperformed Google, yielding results similar to those generated by the brochures.
conclusionOverall, LLMs, as a powerful tool, demonstrate significant potential in generating PEMs for TED. They are capable of producing high-quality, understandable, accurate, and empathetic content, but there is still room for improvement in terms of readability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40682758What 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.