ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of Gemini 3.0- and ChatGPT 5.0-Generated Regional Language Informed Consent Forms in Ophthalmology: A Dual-Rater Study in Hindi and Kannada.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the accuracy, linguistic quality, clinical completeness, and real-world applicability of informed consent forms generated in Indian regional languages (Hindi and Kannada) by two large language model-based chatbots for common ophthalmic surgical procedures.
methodsIn this comparative, blinded observational study, two chatbots (Gemini 3.0 (Google, California, USA) and ChatGPT 5.0 (OpenAI, California, USA)) were prompted to generate informed consent documents in Hindi and Kannada for five ophthalmic scenarios: cataract surgery, traumatic corneal perforation repair, therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty, orbitotomy, and squint surgery. Outputs were independently assessed by four ophthalmologist raters (two for each language) using a 10-point scoring system based on correctness, completeness, language and readability, clinical relevance, and real-world applicability. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Paired t-tests were used to compare chatbot performance, effect sizes (Cohen's d) were estimated, and inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).
resultsAcross both languages, Gemini 3.0 demonstrated more consistent performance and higher combined mean scores. In the Hindi cohort, combined mean scores were comparable between Gemini 3.0 (7.85) and ChatGPT 5.0 (8.00), with significant rater-dependent preference variability. In contrast, in the Kannada cohort, Gemini 3.0 significantly outperformed ChatGPT 5.0 (8.8 vs 7.7, p<0.01), with large to extremely large effect sizes (Cohen's d: 1.23-3.8). Inter-rater reliability was moderate to good for Gemini 3.0 (ICC: 0.62-0.71) and lower for ChatGPT 5.0 (ICC: 0.38-0.59). ChatGPT 5.0 exhibited frequent grammatical and terminological inaccuracies, particularly in Kannada, affecting clinical usability.
conclusionLarge language models can generate clinically usable informed consent forms in Indian regional languages; however, performance varies significantly between models. Gemini 3.0 demonstrated superior linguistic accuracy, consistency, and clinical suitability. Language-specific validation and mandatory human oversight are essential before clinical implementation.
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.