Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40790575›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2025

Evaluating tonsillectomy-related YouTube videos via a human expert review and the ChatGPT-4: a multi-method quality analysis.

Serkan Serifler, Fatih Gul

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Serkan SeriflerSchool of Medicine, Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey. serkanserifler@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0771-7373
Fatih GulDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Lokman Hekim University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7992-0974

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe quality and reliability of health-related content on YouTube remain a growing concern. This study aimed to evaluate tonsillectomy-related YouTube videos using a multi-method framework that combines human expert review, large language model (ChatGPT-4) analysis, and transcript readability assessment.

methodsA total of 76 English-language YouTube videos were assessed. Two otolaryngologists independently rated video quality using the DISCERN instrument and JAMA benchmarks. Corrected transcripts were evaluated by ChatGPT-4 (May 2024 version) for accuracy and completeness. Spearman correlations and regression analyses were used to explore associations between human and AI evaluations. Videos were also categorized as transcript-heavy or visually rich to examine the effect of visual presentation.

resultsProfessional videos consistently outperformed patient-generated content in quality metrics. ChatGPT-4 accuracy scores showed a strong correlation with JAMA ratings (ρ = 0.56), while completeness was strongly associated with DISCERN scores (ρ = 0.72). Visually rich videos demonstrated significantly higher AI accuracy than transcript-heavy videos (Cohen's d = 0.600, p = 0.030), suggesting that visual context may enhance transcript-based interpretation. However, the average transcript readability (FKGL = 8.38) exceeded the recommended level for patient education.

conclusionTonsillectomy-related YouTube content varies widely in quality. Human-AI alignment supports the use of large language models for preliminary content screening. Visually enriched content may improve AI interpretability, while readability concerns highlight the need for more accessible educational resources. Multimodal evaluation and design should be prioritized in future digital health content.

Indexed as

Social MediaTonsillectomyVideo RecordingComprehensionGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansPatient Education as TopicReproducibility of ResultsHealth information qualityLarge language modelsTonsillectomyYouTube

Identifiers

PMID40790575
PMCPMC12337363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.