ArticleCureus2025
Readability of Professional Medical Content on Acute Appendicitis: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study of ChatGPT and UpToDate.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Acute appendicitis is one of the most common diseases occurring due to inflammation of the vermiform appendix, which requires surgical intervention. With the advent of standardized artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA), AI-based search engines have emerged as a secondary means for patients to educate themselves about their health. The readability of each response is important for concept understanding as well as the impact of novel therapeutics. Aims This study aims to evaluate and compare the readability of medical information on acute appendicitis generated by an AI language model and UpToDate (Wolters Kluwer Health, Waltham, MA) using established readability metrics. Methodology A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate the readability of six ChatGPT-4o and six UpToDate responses on acute appendicitis. Readability parameters were assessed using WebFX (WebFX®, Harrisburg, PA), and differences between sources were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test in IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) and R (v4.3.2, The R Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Results UpToDate had a higher word count and higher words per sentence than ChatGPT (both p < 0.05). ChatGPT had a lower absolute difficult-word count (p = 0.002) but a higher difficult-word percentage (p = 0.002). Differences in Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and sentence count were not statistically significant (all
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.