ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2025
Readability of Chatbot Responses in Prostate Cancer and Urological Care: Objective Metrics Versus Patient Perceptions.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 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.
- Guideline-based evaluation of large language models for patient counselling before robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: accuracy, safety, and readability.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language models in chronic rhinosinusitis: methodological constraints and the need for clinically grounded validation.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 · 2026Article
- Quality and Usability of Prostate Cancer Information Generated by Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: A Comparative Analysis.Cancers · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored as chatbots for patient education, including applications in urooncology. Since only 12% of adults have proficient health literacy and most patient information materials exceed recommended reading levels, improving readability is crucial. Although LLMs could potentially increase the readability of medical information, evidence is mixed, underscoring the need to assess chatbot outputs in clinical settings. Therefore, this study evaluates the measured and perceived readability of chatbot responses in speech-based interactions with urological patients. Urological patients engaged in unscripted conversations with a GPT-4-based chatbot. Transcripts were analyzed using three readability indices: Flesch-Reading-Ease (FRE), Lesbarkeitsindex (LIX) and Wiener-Sachtextformel (WSF). Perceived readability was assessed using a survey covering technical language, clarity and explainability. Associations between measured and perceived readability were analyzed. Knowledge retention was not assessed in this study. A total of 231 conversations were evaluated. The most frequently addressed topics were prostate cancer (22.5%), robotic-assisted prostatectomy (19.9%) and follow-up (18.6%). Objectively, responses were classified as difficult to read (FRE 43.1 ± 9.1; LIX 52.8 ± 6.2; WSF 11.2 ± 1.6). In contrast, perceived readability was rated highly for technical language, clarity and explainability (83-90%). Correlation analyses revealed no association between objective and perceived readability. Chatbot responses were objectively written at a difficult reading level, exceeding recommendations for optimized health literacy. Nevertheless, most patients perceived the information as clear and understandable. This discrepancy suggests that perceived comprehensibility is influenced by factors beyond measurable linguistic complexity.
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.