ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Balancing Accuracy and Readability: Comparative Evaluation of AI Chatbots for Patient Education on Rotator Cuff Tears.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Information Quality and Semantic Stability of AI Chatbot Responses to Complete Denture Questions: A Turkish-English Benchmarking Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Gemini 1.5 Flash provides the most reliable content while ChatGPT-4o offers the highest readability for patient education on meniscal tears.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Performance evaluation of large language models in bladder cancer patient education Q&A: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in oncology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesRotator cuff (RC) tears are a leading cause of shoulder pain and disability. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbots are increasingly applied in healthcare for diagnostic support and patient education, but the reliability, quality, and readability of their outputs remain uncertain. International guidelines (AMA, NIH, European health communication frameworks) recommend that patient materials be written at a 6th-8th grade reading level, yet most online and AI-generated content exceeds this threshold.
methodsWe compared responses from three AI chatbots-ChatGPT-4o (OpenAI), Gemini 1.5 Flash (Google), and DeepSeek-V3 (Deepseek AI)-to 20 frequently asked patient questions about RC tears. Four orthopedic surgeons independently rated reliability and usefulness (7-point Likert) and overall quality (5-point Global Quality Scale). Readability was assessed using six validated indices. Statistical analysis included Kruskal-Wallis and ANOVA with Bonferroni correction; inter-rater agreement was measured using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).
resultsInter-rater reliability was good to excellent (ICC 0.726-0.900). Gemini 1.5 Flash achieved the highest reliability and quality, ChatGPT-4o performed comparably but slightly lower in diagnostic content, and DeepSeek-V3 consistently scored lowest in reliability and quality but produced the most readable text (FKGL ≈ 6.5, within the 6th-8th grade target). None of the models reached a Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score above 60, indicating that even the most readable outputs remained more complex than plain-language standards.
conclusionsGemini 1.5 Flash and ChatGPT-4o generated more accurate and higher-quality responses, whereas DeepSeek-V3 provided more accessible content. No single model fully balanced accuracy and readability. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Hybrid use of AI platforms-leveraging high-accuracy models alongside more readable outputs, with clinician oversight-may optimize patient education by ensuring both accuracy and accessibility. Future work should assess real-world comprehension and address the legal, ethical, and generalizability challenges of AI-driven patient education.
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.