ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
Utility of ChatGPT-4o in Creating Patient Handouts in Ophthalmology: A Comparison With American Academy of Ophthalmology Educational Materials.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2026. 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.
- Accuracy and Effectiveness of AI-Powered Systems in Patient Counseling, Education, and Management in Optometry and Related Eye-Care Settings: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: This study compares the readability and quality of ChatGPT-4o-generated and American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) patient handouts in English and Spanish, as AAO materials are expert developed but not publicly accessible. Methods: Ten AAO handouts on common ocular conditions were obtained in English and Spanish. ChatGPT-4o was queried to create handouts at an 8th-grade reading level of comparable length. English readability was assessed with Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease, and Spanish readability was assessed with five validated metrics, including the Szigriszt-Pazos Perspicuity Index (SPPI) and the Flesch-Szigriszt Index (INFLESZ). Grade levels were measured by the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Crawford-Nivel-de-Grado. Three ophthalmologist graders per language assessed content with the Quality of Generated Language Outputs for Patients (QGLOP), indicated their preferred handout, and attempted to identify its source. Results: ChatGPT-4o handouts had English readability similar to that of AAO (SMOG 7.86 ± 0.53 vs. 7.49 ± 0.76; P = 0.35) but significantly lower Spanish SPPI scores (60.26 ± 4.47 vs. 64.82 ± 2.97; P = 0.04). Grade levels were comparable. English QGLOP scores were similar (14.73 vs. 14.87; P = 0.97), but Spanish ChatGPT handouts scored higher in all categories (15.83 vs. 14.23; P < 0.001). ChatGPT-4o handouts were correctly identified by 17 of 30 in English (56.7%) and by 3 of 30 in Spanish (10.0%). They were favored 23 out of 30 times in English (76.7%) and 29 out of 30 times in Spanish (96.7%). Conclusions: ChatGPT-generated materials matched or exceeded AAO handouts in readability and content quality, with Spanish versions being most preferred. Translational Relevance: Integrating artificial intelligence-generated patient education materials into ophthalmic care can enhance health literacy for multilingual patient populations.
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.