ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Evaluation of accuracy, quality, and readability of information on hypothyroidism provided by different artificial intelligence chatbot models.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating large language models for myocardial infarction public health education: a comparative study on information quality, transparency and readability.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Toward safer digital sexual health communication: evaluating the public health reliability of large language model responses on sexually transmitted infections.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating search-enabled large language model interfaces for mpox public health consultation: a guideline-based comparative study.Frontiers in public health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study assessed the accuracy, quality, and readability of responses from three leading AI chatbots-ChatGPT-3.5, DeepSeek-V3, and Google Gemini-2.5-on the diagnosis, treatment, and long-term risks of adult hypothyroidism, comparing their outputs with current clinical guidelines. Methods: Two thyroid specialists developed 27 questions based on the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Hypothyroidism in Adults (2017 edition), covering three categories: diagnosis, treatment, and long-term health risks. Responses from each AI model were independently evaluated by two reviewers. Accuracy was rated using a six-point Likert scale, quality using the DISCERN tool and the five-point Likert scale, and readability was assessed by the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI),and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook(SMOG). Results: All three AI models demonstrated excellent performance in accuracy (mean score > 4.5) and quality (high-quality rate > 94%). According to the DISCERN tool, no significant difference was observed in the overall information quality among the models. However, Gemini-2.5 generated responses of significantly lower quality for treatment-related questions than for diagnostic inquiries. The content generated by all models was relatively difficult to comprehend (low FRE scores and high FKGL/GFI scores), generally requiring a college-level or higher education for adequate understanding. Conclusion: All three AI chatbots were capable of producing highly accurate and high-quality medical information regarding hypothyroidism, with their responses showing strong consistency with clinical guidelines. This underscores the substantial potential of AI in supporting medical information delivery. However, the consistently high reading difficulty of their outputs may limit their practical utility in patient education. Future research should focus on improving the readability and patient-friendliness of AI outputs-through prompt engineering and multi-round dialogue optimization-while maintaining professional accuracy, to enable broader application of AI in health education.
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.