ArticleUrolithiasis2025
Evaluation of ChatGPT-4o
Article in Urolithiasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy, readability, and health information quality of AI chatbot responses for patient education on intermittent fasting in chronic kidney disease: a prospective structured evaluation.Frontiers in nephrology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in membranous nephropathy: transforming clinical management toward precision medicine.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- The readability and quality paradox: Comparing ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity outputs on pediatric chest pain queries.PloS one · 2026Article
- Exploring evaluation measures of large language models for family caregiver use: A scoping review.Digital healthReview
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
This study aims to evaluate the reliability, quality and readability of ChatGPT-4o responses regarding pediatric urolithiasis. Forty frequently asked questions about pediatric urinary stones were posed to ChatGPT-4o twice, one week apart. The reliability of ChatGPT-4o's responses was assessed using the five-point DISCERN tool (mDISCERN). The overall quality of the responses was evaluated using the Global Quality Scale (GQS). To assess the readability of ChatGPT-4o's responses, multiple metrics were employed, including the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), the Gunning Fog Index (GFI), the Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). The median mDISCERN score was 5 (range: 4-5), and the median GQS score was 5 (range: 3-5), indicating high reliability and quality. However, readability metrics suggested a high level of difficulty: FRE (27.98 ± 13.65), FKGL (11.46 ± 1.88), SMOG (14.96 ± 1.64), GFI (17.27 ± 2.37), and CLI (15.60 ± 1.95). Only 2.5% of responses were understandable to individuals with reading skills at a 10-12-year-old level, 37.5% were suitable for college-level readers, and 60% required professional-level comprehension. A moderate correlation was observed between mDISCERN and GQS scores (r = 0.42, p = 0.007), but neither correlated significantly with readability metrics. ChatGPT-4o may provide reliable and high-quality information about pediatric urinary stones; however, the advanced reading level of its responses presents a significant barrier to accessibility for patients and caregivers. Therefore, despite its potential utility, the readability challenge must be addressed to ensure equitable patient education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41128842What 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.