ArticleDigital health
Readability, reliability, and quality of kyphosis-related information provided by artificial intelligence chatbots: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- Reliability and readability of five AI chatbots for concussion health advice across retrieval augmented and pretrained models.Scientific reports · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are increasingly used for health information dissemination. However, their effectiveness depends on the clarity, reliability, and quality of the content they deliver. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the readability and reliability of kyphosis-related information provided by six major AI chatbots: ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Perplexity, DeepSeek, and Grok. Methods: We selected the top 10 kyphosis-related questions from Google's "People also ask" section and submitted them to each chatbot. Readability was assessed using FKGL, FKRS, GFOG, SMOG, CL, ARI, and LW indices. Quality and reliability were evaluated using the DISCERN tool, JAMA benchmark, Global Quality Score (GQS), Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP), and a kyphosis-specific content score (KSC). Statistical analyses were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: No statistically significant difference was found among chatbots in FKGL, FKRS, SMOG, ARI, or GFOG scores. However, Perplexity had significantly higher DISCERN and EQIP scores, indicating superior content quality. All chatbots presented content at a readability level higher than the AMA-recommended sixth-grade level. While AI models provided more comprehensive and up-to-date information than traditional web sources, their outputs remained challenging for the average patient to comprehend. Conclusions: AI chatbots offer promising tools for disseminating health information about kyphosis but require significant improvements in readability. Expert-reviewed and patient-centered refinements are necessary to ensure accessibility and safety in digital health communication.
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.