ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2026
Evaluating the ability of AI chatbots to provide informed consent information for common oncological surgeries.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInformed consent is fundamental to oncological surgery, but communication is often hindered by medical terminology, inconsistent explanations and variation in patient understanding. Large language models may improve accessibility by generating simplified consent information. This study assessed whether four leading artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, ChatGPT (GPT-4), Gemini (2.5 Flash), DeepSeek (R1) and Grok (3) could generate information understandable to patients and comprehensive enough to support informed consent for six common oncological operations.
methodsStandardised patient-style prompts were applied, and chatbot outputs were evaluated for readability using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Gunning Fog Index (GF). Quality and completeness, including coverage of procedure details, risks, benefits, alternatives and consequences of no treatment, were assessed by three consultant surgeons using a modified DISCERN instrument.
resultsGemini produced the highest quality information (mean DISCERN 72.3 ± 3.0), followed by Grok (63.0 ± 1.8), whereas ChatGPT (48.0 ± 4.7) and DeepSeek (47.1 ± 1.8) performed less well. DeepSeek generated the most readable content (FKGL 9.7; GF 10.8), although no model achieved the recommended sixth-grade level. Common limitations included the lack of systematic referencing (except Gemini), occasional factual inaccuracies, reliance on predominantly US-based resources, and failure to assess patient understanding.
conclusionOverall, AI chatbots can provide structured, accessible information to support surgical consent, but current limitations restrict their use as standalone tools. Gemini demonstrated the strongest balance of readability and quality, yet all models require refinement to improve reliability, equity, and patient safety. At present, AI should complement, rather than replace, clinician-led consent discussions.
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.