ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2025
Assessing Patient Education Materials for Colorectal Cancer Generated by Four Large Language Models: Readability, Quality, and Transparency Challenges.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Colorectal cancer (CRC) necessitates effective patient education, yet patients increasingly utilize Artificial Intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) for health information, raising concerns about quality and accessibility. This study evaluates the suitability of leading LLMs for generating CRC patient education materials. Eleven standardized prompts covering CRC topics from diagnosis to prognosis were posed to each LLM in separate sessions. Readability was measured using Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FRES) and Grade Level (FKGL). Quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument (16 criteria, max score 80) by two independent reviewers. Readability consistently exceeded recommended levels for patient materials, with FKGL scores typically corresponding to US grades 7–10. DISCERN scores indicated ‘fair’ quality overall (range 37–58,), with ERNIE X1 demonstrating the most consistent performance (48–58) among the tested models. Gemini-2.5Pro generated significantly longer and more complex responses (higher average words per sentence) with higher quality variability (37–57). Critically, none of the four models provided citations or information sources. Current LLMs can generate factually accurate basic CRC information but exhibit significant limitations for patient education. Outputs consistently fail to meet recommended readability standards, potentially hindering comprehension for many patients. While demonstrating ‘fair’ quality, the universal lack of source citations severely compromises transparency and trustworthiness. Substantial improvements, particularly in simplifying language and providing verifiable sources, are essential before these AI tools can be reliably and safely used as standalone resources for CRC patient education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41392071What 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.