ArticleEndocrine2026
Assessing the informatics utility of artificial intelligence chatbots for patient and clinician support: the case of adrenal incidentaloma.
Article in Endocrine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe use of artificial intelligence (AI) in clinical medicine is expanding rapidly. Over the past two decades, the incidence of adrenal tumors has increased tenfold, primarily due to the widespread use of imaging, leading to a surge in the detection of adrenal incidentalomas. This comparative study assessed the performance of leading AI chatbots in addressing patient and physician oriented questions on adrenal incidentalomas, focusing on accuracy, quality, hallucination tendency, and readability.
methodsIn this study, the performance of four AI chatbots, ChatGPT 4.0, Gemini 2.0 Flash, DeepSeek, and Perplexity, was evaluated. A total of 35 questions, categorized into “patient education” and “physician support,” were submitted to each chatbot. Responses were independently assessed for accuracy, quality, and hallucination tendency using a Likert scale. Readability was analyzed using standard metrics.
resultsDeepSeek demonstrated the highest performance in both accuracy and response quality, outperforming the other chatbots (p < 0.001). ChatGPT 4.0 performed better than both Gemini 2.0 Flash and Perplexity (p < 0.001), while no significant difference was observed between Gemini 2.0 Flash and Perplexity. Perplexity exhibited a higher tendency to hallucinate compared to the other models (p < 0.001). In terms of readability, Perplexity was the least readable model, whereas ChatGPT 4.0 achieved highest readability scores based on both FRE (Flesch Reading Ease) and FKGL (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level) metrics.
conclusionAI chatbots can serve as valuable tools for disseminating information about adrenal incidentalomas, particularly in the context of patient education. Among the evaluated models, DeepSeek tended to provide comparatively higher accuracy and quality, with a lower tendency to hallucinate. In contrast, Perplexity demonstrated comparatively lower performance across multiple metrics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41528618What 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.