ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Evaluating the quality of large language model-generated preoperative patient education material: a comparative study across models and surgery types.
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.
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.
- The potential of large language models to address patients' preoperative questions before anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery.Annals of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language models using the Type 2 Diabetes Health Education guideline: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT-4.1, Claude-4.0, DeepSeek-V3, and ERNIE Bot 4.5 Turbo.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Large language models in patient education for brain tumors: opportunities, risks, and ethical considerations.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.