Observational studyMedicine2025
The quality, accuracy, and readability of information about hidradenitis suppurativa provided by artificial intelligence: Comparative analysis of ChatGPT, Copilot, and Perplexity.
Observational study in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Owing to shame and stigmatization, hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) patients may seek information about their disease on artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots. We aimed to evaluate the readability, quality, and accuracy of HS-related information provided by 3 AI chatbots: ChatGPT-4o, Copilot, and Perplexity. The 24 most frequently queried keywords regarding HS were identified using Google Trends. In this observational and cross-sectional study, we asked ChatGPT-4o, Copilot, and Perplexity chatbots for these keywords. The readability was evaluated using Flesch readability ease and Flesch-Kincaid grade level scores. SpaCy software v3.8.2, TERA (The Text Ease and Readability Assessor), TAALED (Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Lexical Diversity, βv1.4.1), and TAALES (Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Lexical Sophistication, v2.2) were used for the further linguistic analysis. The ensuring quality information for patients (EQIP) and DISCERN tools were used to assess the quality. The accuracy was assessed using a 6-point Likert scale. Perplexity exhibited the highest text length (P < .001). Copilot exhibited better readability scores (P < .001). Perplexity had higher FKGL (P = .001) and lower FRES (P = .001) than the others regarding the outputs in the "test, operation, investigation, or procedure & drug, medication, or product" category. Nevertheless, none of the chatbots achieved the necessary level of readability. Lexical diversity was lower in Perplexity than in the other chatbots (P < .001). Referential cohesion was highest in Perplexity, whereas deep cohesion was highest in Copilot (P < .001 and P = .009, respectively). Age of acquisition was lowest in Copilot responses (P < .001). Copilot achieved the highest EQIP score with "good quality with minor problems" (P < .001). ChatGPT had the lowest DISCERN scores (P = .001). Although all chatbot models displayed favorable accuracy results, Perplexity had higher accuracy scores compared to Copilot (P = .020). All the AI models had difficult reading levels as college or postgraduate. Copilot seemed to generate lexically simpler outputs, while Perplexity produced longer responses with more referential cohesion but lower lexical diversity. ChatGPT, Copilot, and Perplexity seem insufficient for providing extensive, easily understandable, and exactly accurate medical information about HS.
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.