Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41136581›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2026

Can a large language model inform patients about auditory brainstem implants?

Aysun Parlak Kocabay, Merve İkiz Bozsoy, Ergin Eroğlu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Aysun Parlak KocabayDepartment of Audiology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. aysunprlk@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7058-7519
Merve İkiz BozsoyDepartment of Speech and Language Therapy, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1275-629X
Ergin EroğluDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6846-4475

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study evaluated the performance of ChatGPT-4o in responding to patient-centered questions concerning auditory brainstem implantation (ABI), with a focus on content quality and readability.

methodsA total of 51 real-world patient questions related to ABI were reviewed and grouped into five thematic categories: diagnosis and candidacy, surgical procedures and complications, device function and mapping, rehabilitation and expected outcomes, and daily life and long-term concerns. Responses were independently assessed by two audiologists and one otologist across four domains-accuracy, comprehensiveness, clarity, and credibility-using a 5-point Likert scale. Readability was evaluated using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) formulas. Kruskal-Wallis and Friedman tests were used to examine statistical differences across question categories and evaluation dimensions.

resultsChatGPT-4o achieved consistently high scores across all evaluative domains, with mean values exceeding 4.5. Clarity received the highest average score (4.72). No significant differences were found between thematic categories or across dimensions. However, readability analysis revealed that most responses required college-level reading proficiency (FKGL = 13.3 ± 2), particularly in the domains of diagnosis and surgical content, and were rated as "difficult" according to Flesch Reading Ease scores (FRE < 50).

conclusionChatGPT-4o shows potential as a supportive communication tool in the context of ABI patient education. However, its application in clinical practice remains limited by issues of readability and clinical specificity. Ongoing refinement and medical oversight will be essential to ensure safe and effective integration into healthcare settings.

Indexed as

Auditory Brain Stem ImplantationAuditory Brain Stem ImplantsComprehensionLanguagePatient Education as TopicHumansLarge Language ModelsSurveys and QuestionnairesArtificial intelligenceAuditory brainstem implantChatGPTLarge language models

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.