ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Readability Analysis of AI-Generated Versus Evidence-Based Educational Content on Atrial Fibrillation Management for Medical Professionals.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia and is associated with increased risks of stroke, heart failure, and healthcare burden. Access to clear and up-to-date educational content is essential for effective decision-making in complex cases such as AF. Evidence-based resources like UpToDate are often time-consuming to read, and clinicians frequently face time constraints in fast-paced clinical settings. With the growing role of artificial intelligence in healthcare, tools like ChatGPT-3.5 (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) offer fast and accessible medical summaries. However, their suitability in professional education remains inadequately studied, particularly in comparison with evidence-based resources like UpToDate. Methodology A cross-sectional study was conducted in June 2025. Educational content was generated using ChatGPT-3.5 based on structured prompts and retrieved from UpToDate. Non-textual elements were excluded. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FRE) score, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, word count, sentence count, average words per sentence, and both count and percentage of difficult words. Statistical comparison was done using the Mann-Whitney U test (p < 0.05), analysed with R software (v4.3.2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Results ChatGPT content was significantly shorter (median 495 vs. 3381 words; p = 0.029), had shorter sentences (14.3 vs. 19.3 words; p = 0.029), but a higher percentage of difficult words (29.6% vs. 23.3%; p = 0.029). Other differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions ChatGPT provides concise educational content with readability scores comparable to UpToDate but with a higher proportion of complex vocabulary. While promising as a supplementary resource, its integration into clinical decision-making should be guided by expert review and validation.
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.