ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)
Evaluating the usefulness of ChatGPT and Gemini in generating educational content for patients with vitiligo: a comparative cross-sectional study.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center). 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.
- Accurate but not accessible: artificial intelligence chatbots and the limits of patient education.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)Article
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: This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of ChatGPT and Gemini in generating information suitable for developing educational materials for patients with vitiligo. Methods: Information was obtained from ChatGPT and Gemini in response to questions regarding vitiligo derived from the American Academy of Dermatology website. Differences between the groups were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney Results: Author 1 assigned a completeness score of 2 to 6 out of 15 responses generated by ChatGPT. All texts received full scores for accuracy, comprehensibility, and usefulness. Six responses from Gemini were scored 2 for completeness, and 1 response received a score of 2 for comprehensibility; all other evaluations were assigned full scores. Author 2 assigned a completeness score of 2 to 3 responses from each model, and 1 Gemini response was rated 2 for comprehensibility. All other assessments received full scores. The mean Flesch Reading Ease scores for ChatGPT and Gemini were 34.92 ± 12.28 and 31.40 ± 13.33, respectively ( Conclusion: ChatGPT and Gemini provided largely accurate and useful information on vitiligo; however, most responses were difficult to read. The content should be reviewed and refined by dermatologists to ensure adequate readability before being disseminated to patients.
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.