ArticleIndian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology2026
Evaluation of artificial intelligence-based patient education models for irritable bowel syndrome.
Article in Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIrritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional gastrointestinal disorder with a significant psycho-social burden. Despite medical advancements, patient education on IBS remains inadequate. This study compared two large language models (LLMs)-ChatGPT-4 and Gemini-1-for their performance in addressing IBS-related patient queries.
methodsThirty-nine IBS-related frequently asked questions (FAQs) from IBS organizations and hospital websites were categorized into six domains: general understanding, symptoms and diagnosis, causes, dietary considerations, treatment and lifestyle factors. Responses from ChatGPT-4 and Gemini-1 were evaluated by two independent gastroenterologists for comprehensiveness and accuracy, with a third reviewer resolving disagreements. Readability was measured using five standardized indices (Flesch Reading Ease [FRE], Simple Measure of Gobbledygook [SMOG], Gunning Fog Index [GFI], Automated Readability Index [ARI], Reading Level Consensus [ARC]) and empathy was rated on a 4-point Likert scale by three reviewers.
resultsGemini produced comprehensive and accurate answers for 94.9% (37/39) of questions, with two rated as mixed (vague/outdated). ChatGPT achieved 89.7% (35/39) comprehensive responses, with four rated mixed. Domain-wise, both models performed best in "symptoms and diagnosis" and "treatment", while mixed responses were most frequent in "general understanding" and "lifestyle". There was no significant difference in comprehensiveness (p = 0.67). Readability analysis showed both LLMs generated difficult-to-read content: Gemini's FRE score was 35.83 ± 3.31 vs. ChatGPT's 32.33 ± 5.57 (p = 0.21), corresponding to college-level proficiency. ChatGPT's responses were more empathetic, with all responses rated moderately empathetic; Gemini was mostly rated minimally empathetic (66.7%).
conclusionWhile ChatGPT and Gemini provided extensive information, their limitations-such as complex language and occasional inaccuracies-must be addressed. Future improvements should focus on enhancing readability, contextual relevance and accuracy to better meet the diverse needs of patients and clinicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40974448What 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.