ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
AI-generated explanations in kidney transplantation: accuracy vs. readability and implications for patient education.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond social media: the era of generative AI and intelligent digital platforms in nephrology education.Renal failure · 2026Article
- Comparison of artificial intelligence-based chatbots and expert periodontists in responding to patient questions: a multi-dimensional analysis.BMC oral health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Effective patient education is critical for informed decision-making and adherence in kidney transplantation. Generative artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), has the potential to enhance patient education in kidney transplantation; however, its factual accuracy and readability remain incompletely characterized. Methods: We evaluated the performance of the GPT-5.1 (2025) model in generating plain-language explanations for 100 clinically relevant kidney transplantation terms. Explanations were generated using a standardized prompt (first round) and a revised prompt explicitly requesting an eighth-grade reading level or lower (second round). Accuracy was assessed by expert reviewers using a 5-point Likert scale, while readability was evaluated using the Flesch Reading Ease (higher score indicated easier readability of the text) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (higher score indicated higher education level required to understand the text) score. The study was conducted in November 2025. Results: All AI-generated explanations demonstrated high accuracy, with no clinically significant errors. In the first round, the mean Flesch Reading Ease score was 23.6 ± 23.4, indicating very difficult readability, and 46% of explanations required a college-level reading ability (mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 13.4 ± 4.8). Following prompt revision, readability improved substantially. The mean Flesch Reading Ease score increased to 62.4 ± 7.5, corresponding to standard readability, and all explanations were written at a middle school level or below (mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 6.3 ± 1.1). Conclusion: GPT-5.1 generated highly accurate explanations of kidney transplantation terms across prompting strategies. Explicit readability-focused prompting substantially improved readability without compromising accuracy, underscoring the importance of prompt design when deploying LLMs for patient-centered education in transplantation.
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.