ArticlePaediatric & neonatal pain2026
A Longitudinal Analysis of the Usefulness, Readability, Consistency, and Capacity of Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses Regarding the Reality of Chronic Pain in Children.
Article in Paediatric & neonatal pain, 2026. 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.
- Comment on "A Longitudinal Analysis of the Usefulness, Readability, Consistency, and Capacity of Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses Regarding the Reality of Chronic Pain in Children".Paediatric & neonatal pain · 2026Article
- A Longitudinal Analysis of the Usefulness, Readability, Consistency, and Capacity of Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses Regarding the Reality of Chronic Pain in Children.Paediatric & neonatal pain · 2026Article
- The readability and quality paradox: Comparing ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity outputs on pediatric chest pain queries.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess longitudinal improvements in generative AI chatbot responses to a sensitive pediatric chronic pain prompt and to evaluate the impact of providing explicit scoring criteria on their performance. In January 2025, four GenAI chatbots (ChatGPT-4o, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini 2.0 Experimental Advanced, and Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2) were each prompted 10 times: "I am a child with chronic pain. Is it all in my head?" Responses were scored using 10 predefined criteria (e.g., empathetic tone, evidence-based content, and child-friendly language). Readability was assessed by Flesch-Kincaid Grade Levels. Responses were compared to a baseline collected in January 2024. Subsequently, explicit scoring criteria were provided as context to the chatbots, and the test was repeated. Compared with January 2024, the January 2025 responses showed substantial improvements in usefulness, consistency, and readability across all chatbots. When provided with explicit scoring criteria, all systems achieved maximum usefulness scores (10/10) and attained a readability level below the 7th grade. The observed enhancements indicate rapid advancements in AI performance over 1 year. Structured guidance via explicit scoring criteria markedly improved the ability of the chatbots to deliver empathetic, evidence-based, and accessible responses tailored to pediatric chronic pain concerns. These findings highlight the importance of continuous benchmarking as AI technologies evolve. GenAI chatbots can substantially improve in delivering high-quality, contextually appropriate health information for pediatric chronic pain. Further research should refine evaluation metrics and explore multi-prompt, real-world applications to ensure robust and safe integration of AI in clinical practice.
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.