ArticleCureus2025
A Cross-Sectional Study to Compare AI-Generated Educational Content Using Google Gemini for Medical Professionals With UpToDate on Pediatric Asthma.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccurate and up-to-date educational resources are crucial for medical professionals to deliver effective patient care, particularly in conditions like pediatric asthma, which has a high disease burden in children. Timely interventions are essential to manage this condition appropriately and to ensure better outcomes. With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence in healthcare, AI tools like Google Gemini are being explored as quick and accessible alternatives for generating medical content. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted to focus on four core topics related to the management of pediatric asthma. Prompts for each of the core topics were entered in Google Gemini and UpToDate to generate responses. The WebFx Readability Tool was used to assess readability utilizing metrics such as Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), SMOG Index, word count, sentence count, words per sentence, difficult word count, and percentage. The collected data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test, and a p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsWhen comparing the readability characteristics between UpToDate and Google Gemini, statistically significant differences were found, indicating that Google Gemini is more accessible for individuals with lower literacy skills. UpToDate received higher scores on the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index across all four core topics, denoting it as hard to understand for the normal population. Google Gemini scored a greater difficulty word percentage across all four topics.
conclusionGoogle Gemini was found to use more complex vocabulary while still maintaining overall accessibility, making it appropriate for patients with lower literacy levels. Although certain readability parameters demonstrated Google Gemini to be a more reader-friendly tool for assessing and understanding medical content, the high percentage of difficult words may make it more challenging for younger individuals and lower socio-economic populations to access.
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.