Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41149502›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2025

Readability of Chatbot Responses in Prostate Cancer and Urological Care: Objective Metrics Versus Patient Perceptions.

Lasse Maywald, Lisa Nguyen, Jana Theres Winterstein, Martin Joachim Hetz, Maurin Helen Mangold, Luisa Vivienne Renner, Titus Josef Brinker, Frederik Wessels, Nicolas Carl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
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

9 authors.

Lasse MaywaldDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5163-3383
Lisa NguyenMedical Faculty Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karls University of Heidelberg, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.
Jana Theres WintersteinDivision of Digital Prevention, Diagnostics and Therapy Guidance, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3346-9537
Martin Joachim HetzDivision of Digital Prevention, Diagnostics and Therapy Guidance, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Maurin Helen MangoldDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.
Luisa Vivienne RennerDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4485-6586
Titus Josef BrinkerDivision of Digital Prevention, Diagnostics and Therapy Guidance, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Frederik WesselsDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.
Nicolas CarlDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.ORCID 0009-0002-0080-3455

Funding

Manfred Wirth grant for international research of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie (German Society of Urology) CaN1/MW-25
6 · The paper itself

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

ComprehensionHealth LiteracyPatient Education as TopicProstatic NeoplasmsAdultAgedGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedPerceptionartificial intelligencechatbotsGPT-4health literacylarge language modelspatient educationreadabilityurologyurooncology

Identifiers

PMID41149502
PMCPMC12564201

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.