Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41458519›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025

Evaluating the quality of large language model-generated preoperative patient education material: a comparative study across models and surgery types.

Junwei Ma, Yunshan Zhang, Huifeng Tang, Xuemei Yi, Tangsheng Zhong, Xinyun Li, Gang Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

7 authors.

Junwei MaSchool of Nursing, Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Yunshan ZhangThe First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Huifeng TangThe First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Xuemei YiThe First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Tangsheng ZhongThe First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Xinyun LiSchool of Nursing, Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Gang WangThe First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Numerous studies have confirmed the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) as a patient education tool; however, these studies primarily relied on the method of asking medical questions. So far, no studies have comprehensively assessed the quality of the complete preoperative patient education material (PEM) generated by LLMs from the perspectives of different models and surgical types. Objective: This study aims to comprehensively assess and compare the quality of different types of complete preoperative PEM generated by six common LLMs. Design: A Cross-sectional Comparative Study. Methods: We prompted 6 LLMs to generate preoperative PEMs for 6 distinct surgical types. For each surgical type, the materials were evaluated by 3 groups of experts from relevant fields using a 5-point scale for their accuracy and completeness. Two researchers assessed the materials for understandability and actionability using the PEMAT-P, and for suitability using SAM. We also analyzed the materials for readability with Flesch-Kincaid and for sentiment with the VADER sentiment analysis tool. Statistical analysis was performed using the Friedman test, followed by Conover's Results: The research results show that each model has its strengths in different dimensions. All the models demonstrated excellent accuracy, understandability, and actionability with no statistically significant differences. In terms of completeness, Grok-4 and Claude-Opus-4 significantly outperformed GPT-4o. For suitability, Claude-Opus-4 performed the best, while Grok-4 was the worst. For readability, Grok-4 and Gemini-2.5-Pro were the easiest to understand, while Claude-Opus-4 had the lowest readability. Moreover, only Gemini-2.5-Pro could consistently generate content with positive emotions. Conclusion: The research has found that the materials generated by these models can achieve high levels in multiple dimensions, but there is no perfect model. These models can be used by medical staff to generate the initial draft of preoperative PEMs. However, before providing them to the patients, they still need to be reviewed and supplemented by the medical staff.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (AI)comparative analysislarge language model (LLM)patient education material (PEM)preoperative education

Identifiers

PMID41458519
PMCPMC12738167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.