ArticleCureus2025
Patient Education Using AI: A Cross-Sectional Study Comparing ChatGPT and Google Gemini-Generated Patient Education Brochures on Various Surgical Management of Breast Cancer.
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.
- An Evaluation of Breast Augmentation: Accuracy, Utility, and Accessibility of Knowledge for Patient Education and Consultation with Artificial Intelligence.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini are increasingly used for generating patient education materials. This study aimed to compare the readability, reliability, and originality of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated patient education content on surgical management options for breast cancer. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted from January 15 to 21, 2025. Standardized prompts requesting patient education brochures for common breast cancer surgeries were given to ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 2.0 Flash. All responses were generated in English. Readability was assessed using the validated Flesch-Kincaid Readability Calculator, originality using a similarity checker, and reliability using the Modified DISCERN tool. Statistical comparisons were performed using unpaired t-tests with significance set at p<0.05. Results There were no significant differences between the two AI tools in syllables per word, ease score, similarity, or reliability. ChatGPT produced significantly higher word counts (p=0.018) and sentence counts (p=0.001). Gemini generated longer sentences and a higher grade-level score (p=0.002), indicating relatively more complex text. Conclusions Both AI tools produced patient education materials with broadly comparable readability, reliability, and originality. No correlation was observed between readability ease and reliability scores, suggesting consistent performance across both platforms.
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.