Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41392071›Full record

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.

Ming-Yi Yuan, Wen-Qi Hong, Ren-Hao Hu, Xiao-Hua Jiang, Shun Zhang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Ming-Yi YuanDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200120, China.
Wen-Qi HongDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200120, China.
Ren-Hao HuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200120, China.
Xiao-Hua JiangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200120, China.
Shun ZhangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200120, China. v2zs@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3493-1247

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Colorectal cancerEducation materialLarge language modelsReadability

Identifiers

PMID41392071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.