Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41058908›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025

Evaluating a retrieval-augmented pregnancy chatbot: a comprehensibility-accuracy-readability study of the DIAN AI assistant.

P Valan, Pulidindi Venugopal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

P ValanVIT Business School, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Pulidindi VenugopalVIT Business School, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Patient education materials (PEMs) often exceed common health literacy levels. Retrieval-augmented conversational AI may deliver interactive, evidence-grounded explanations tailored to user needs. We evaluated DIAN, a RAG-enabled pregnancy chatbot grounded in the NHS Pregnancy Book, using a comprehensibility-accuracy-readability (CAR) framework to compare perceptions between women and clinicians across key perinatal domains. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional evaluation with standardized prompts and blinded scoring. Participants were 119 women (18-55 years) and 29 clinicians. After brief CAR training and calibration, all evaluators independently rated the same DIAN responses on 4-point Likert scales across postpartum care, pregnancy health and complications, diet and nutrition, and mental and emotional wellbeing. Between-group differences were tested using the Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni adjustment across domains per outcome; effect sizes were summarized with Results: Differences concentrated in postpartum care. Comprehensibility favored women ( Discussion: Grounded in an authoritative national guide, DIAN achieved broadly comparable CAR perceptions across groups, with clinically relevant divergence limited to postpartum care. Women perceived higher comprehensibility and accuracy, while clinicians judged language more readable, suggesting a gap between experiential clarity and professional textual ease. Targeted postpartum refinement, lexical simplification, role-tailored summaries, and actionable checklists may align perceptions without compromising fidelity. More broadly, RAG-grounded chatbots can support equitable digital health education when content is vetted, updated, and evaluated with stakeholder-centered metrics. Future work should examine free-form interactions, longitudinal behavioral outcomes, and ethical safeguards (scope-of-use messaging, escalation pathways, and bias audits).

Indexed as

chatbothealth communicationmaternal healthpatient educationpatient education material

Identifiers

PMID41058908
PMCPMC12497716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.