ArticleEndocrine2025
ChatGPT-4o as a digital health tool for diabetes technology education: insights on reliability, quality, and readability.
Article in Endocrine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technology in Diabetes: A Year in Review.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026Review
- Evaluation of large language model-generated information in diabetes health patient education: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Assessing the information quality of AI-generated patient educational materials for diabetes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional evaluation of large language model chatbot interfaces for patient-facing herpes zoster information: safety, information quality, and readability.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
objectiveThis study evaluated the reliability, quality, utility, and readability of ChatGPT-4o’s responses to frequently asked patient questions about diabetes technologies, addressing the potential of AI tools in patient education.
methodsTwenty open-ended questions were submitted to ChatGPT-4o in both English and Turkish. Three endocrinologists independently rated responses using a modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) scale, Global Quality Scale (GQS), a Likert-based utility scale, and standard readability metrics (FKGL, GFI, FRE). Five responses were further analyzed before and after prompt modification (“explain in simpler terms”) to assess readability improvements.
resultsResponses in English demonstrated “fair” reliability (mean mDISCERN: 28.4 ± 1.6), with 75% rated as “high quality” (median GQS: 4) and “moderately useful” (median utility score: 3). Readability was limited (mean FKGL: 10.5, GFI: 11.1; FRE: 37.8), requiring college-level literacy. Prompting simplification improved readability significantly (mean FKGL: 4.9; FRE: 79.0), without altering content. Strong negative correlations were found between readability complexity and perceived quality (FKGL vs. GQS: r = − 0.449, p = 0.047). Turkish responses were less detailed and sometimes outdated, highlighting linguistic asymmetry.
conclusionChatGPT-4o responses offer moderate-to-high reliability and quality but limited readability. Prompt engineering can enhance accessibility, and English responses are more robust than Turkish ones. ChatGPT-4o aligns more with the educational (DSME) than behavioral support (DSMS) components of diabetes care. While useful as a complementary educational tool, clinical oversight remains essential to ensure safety and contextual accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40848113What 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.