ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2026
Evaluating the Quality of Health Information: Comparison of Human and Artificial Intelligence.
Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2026. 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.
- Evaluating the Quality of Health Information: Comparison of Human and Artificial Intelligence.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Educational Quality of Benign Prostate Surgery Videos on YouTube: A Human and AI-Based Comparative Analysis.Medeniyet medical journal · 2026Article
- Agreement between artificial intelligence and expert evaluation in assessing the quality of asthma health education videos on YouTube and Bilibili: cross-sectional study.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
backgroundOver half of all Americans seek health-related information online, yet the quality of this digital content remains largely unregulated and variable. The DISCERN score, a validated 15-item instrument, offers a structured method to assess the reliability of written health information. While expert-assigned DISCERN scores have been widely applied across various disease states, whether artificial intelligence (AI) can automate this evaluation remains unknown. Specifically, it is unclear whether AI-generated DISCERN scores align with those assigned by human experts. Our study seeks to investigate this gap in knowledge by examining the correlation between AI-generated and human-assigned DISCERN scores for TikTok videos on Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS).
methodsA set of 100 TikTok videos on IBS previously scored using DISCERN by two physicians was chosen. Sixty-nine videos contained transcribable spoken audio, which was processed using a free online transcription tool. The remaining videos either featured songs or music that were not suitable for transcription or were deleted or were not publicly available. The audio transcripts were prefixed with an identical prompt and submitted to two common AI models-ChatGPT 4.0 and Microsoft Copilot for-DISCERN score evaluation. The average DISCERN score for each transcript was compared between the AI models and with the mean of the DISCERN score given by the human reviewers using Pearson correlation (r) and Kruskal Wallis test.
resultsThere was a significant correlation between human and AI-generated DISCERN scores (r = 0.60-0.65). When categorized by the background of the content creators-medical (N = 26) versus non-medical (N = 43), the correlation was significant only for content made by non-medical content creators (r = 0.69-0.75, p < 0.001). Correlation between ChatGPT and Copilot DISCERN scores was stronger for videos by non-medical content creators (r = 0.66) than those by medical content creators (r = 0.43). On linear regression, ChatGPT's DISCERN scores explained 55.6% of the variation in human DISCERN scores for videos by non-medical creators, compared to 8.9% for videos by medical creators. For Copilot, the corresponding values were 47.2% and 9.3%.
conclusionAI models demonstrated moderate alignment with human-assigned DISCERN scores for IBS-related TikTok videos, but only when content was produced by non-medical creators. The weaker correlation for content produced by those with a medical background suggests limitations in current AI models' ability to interpret nuanced or technical health information. These findings highlight the need for further validation across broader topics, languages, platforms, and reviewer pools. If refined, AI-generated DISCERN scoring could serve as a scalable tool to help users assess the reliability of health information on social media and curb misinformation.
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.