ArticleDigital health
Evaluating artificial intelligence chatbots' responses to gynecomastia inquiries: Comparative study of information quality, readability, and guideline consistency.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions of Large Language Models in Health Care Communication: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Are AI chatbots ready for chikungunya public education? Evidence on validity, reliability, and readability.BMC public health · 2026Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, AI chatbots have been widely applied in the healthcare to provide patients with immediate information. Many people feel embarrassed to discuss gynecomastia in person and turn to online resources for support. Objective: This study aims to fill this gap by evaluating the performance of five popular AI chatbots (ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Gemini, Perplexity, and Copilot) in answering questions about gynecomastia, focusing on their reliability, quality, readability, and guideline consistency. Methods: In this study, the top 25 gynecomastia-related queries searched globally from 2004 to 2025 were retrieved from Google Trends and input into five AI chatbots for responses. The reliability and quality of responses were assessed using the DISCERN questionnaire and the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool. Readability was analyzed via the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FKRE). Accuracy, supplementary, and incompleteness were compared with the European Association of Andrology guidelines. Results: Copilot had the lowest DISCERN score (median [interquartile range (IQR)]: 41.5[36.0-45.0]), while DeepSeek performed best in EQIP scoring (median [IQR]: 60.4[59.0-64.1]). For readability, ChatGPT exhibited the highest FKGL score (mean ± standard deviation (SD): 15.1 ± 2.0) but the lowest FKRE score (mean ± SD: 15.1 ± 2.0), indicating the poorest readability. In contrast, DeepSeek achieved the lowest FKGL (mean ± SD: 11.0 ± 1.2), suggesting superior readability. Guideline consistency analysis revealed an overall accuracy of 85.71% for AI responses, but key details were often omitted. Conclusion: AI chatbots provide immediate informational support for gynecomastia patients, but there is significant variability in readability and reliability, alongside risks of omitting guideline content.
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.