ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Evaluating the Competence of AI Chatbots in Answering Patient-Oriented Frequently Asked Questions on Orthognathic Surgery.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- A comparative analysis of large language models for providing oral cavity cancer information.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exploring LLM-based chatbot effectiveness in answering questions related to the risks and benefits of orthognathic treatment: a cross-sectional study.European journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Readability and Quality of Chatbot Responses to Periodontal Patient Queries: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Three Publicly Accessible Large Language Models.International journal of dentistry · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the performance of three widely used artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots-ChatGPT-4, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Claude Sonnet 4-in answering patient-oriented frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to orthognathic surgery. Given the increasing reliance on AI tools in healthcare, it is essential to evaluate their performance to provide accurate, empathetic, readable, and clinically appropriate information.
methodsTwenty FAQs in Turkish about orthognathic surgery were presented to each chatbot. The responses were evaluated by three oral and maxillofacial surgeons using a modified Global Quality Score (GQS), binary clinical appropriateness judgment, and a five-point empathy rating scale. The evaluation process was conducted in a double-blind manner. The Ateşman Readability Formula was applied to each response using an automated Python-based script. Comparative statistical analyses-including ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, and post hoc tests-were used to determine significant differences in performance among chatbots.
resultsGemini outperformed both GPT-4 and Claude in GQS, empathy, and clinical appropriateness (
conclusionsAI chatbots vary significantly in their ability to support surgical patient education. While GPT-4 offers superior readability, Gemini provides the most balanced and clinically reliable responses. These findings underscore the importance of context-specific chatbot selection and continuous clinical oversight to ensure safe and ethical AI-driven communication.
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.