ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Evaluating a retrieval-augmented pregnancy chatbot: a comprehensibility-accuracy-readability study of the DIAN AI assistant.
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.
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.
- The Role of Emotions in Health Literacy and Patient Education: Trends, Technologies, and Future Opportunities-A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evaluation Methods for Inference-Time Retrieval-Augmented and Graph Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models in Health Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- An AI-driven evidence ecosystem for cardiometabolic nutrition: bridging the gap from multiomics to patient empowerment.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.