ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2025
Comparison of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots (ChatGPT vs Google Gemini) for Informed Consent Quality: A Cross-sectional Evaluation.
Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 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.
- Artificial Intelligence for Informed Consent: Helpful Tool or Premature Proxy for Clinical Communication?Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Obtaining informed consent (IC) for tracheostomy is a frequent and essential process in the intensive care unit (ICU). With the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care, chatbots such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini (GG) are being explored as potential tools to assist in drafting IC documents. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, IC drafts for tracheostomy were generated by ChatGPT and GG. Fifteen experienced intensivists independently evaluated these drafts for accuracy, completeness, readability, and sentiment. Readability was measured using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score, while sentiment analysis assessed the emotional tone of the text. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed in terms of accuracy or completeness between the two chatbots. The inter-rater reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation (ICC). The ICC for completeness and accuracy ratings between ChatGPT and GG were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.75-0.92) and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.68-0.89), respectively, suggesting excellent to good inter-rater reliability between the two Chatbots. However, ChatGPT drafts had higher FRE scores (76.46 vs 60.04), indicating better readability. Sentiment analysis revealed that both drafts were predominantly neutral, with GG incorporating slightly more positive expressions. Conclusion: Both ChatGPT and GG can generate clinically appropriate IC content for tracheostomy. ChatGPT appears to have an advantage in producing more readable and patient-friendly material, highlighting its potential utility in clinical communication. How to cite this article: Chilkoti GT, Jain S, Gondode PG. Comparison of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots (ChatGPT vs Google Gemini) for Informed Consent Quality: A Cross-sectional Evaluation. Indian J Crit Care Med 2025;29(11):967-969.
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.