ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Evaluation of the quality, reliability, and readability of ChatGPT-4 responses related to the treatment and rehabilitation of children with cerebral palsy.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This study aims to evaluate the reliability, quality, and readability of ChatGPT-4's responses to questions about cerebral palsy (CP) and rehabilitation strategies. The 56 most frequently asked questions by families about CP, its treatment, and rehabilitation strategies were divided into five categories (A1-5) and asked in ChatGPT-4. The reliability, quality, and readability of the responses were assessed by two researchers, respectively, using the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool, the Global Quality Scale (GQS), and the Flesch Reading Ease Scale (FRE). Median (IQR) values for mDISCERN ranged from 3 (3-3) in A5 to 4 (3-4) in A1, while GQS values ranged from 3 (3-3.5) in A2 to 3.5 (3-4) in A1. The mean readability values assessed with FRE ranged from 31.47 ± 12.92 to 44.84 ± 17.39. No statistically significant differences were observed between the categories. The ICC values suggested very good agreement for both scales, with 0.851 for the mDISCERN total score and 0.824 for the GQS total score.
conclusionThis study suggests that ChatGPT-4 provides moderate reliability and generally acceptable quality of responses regarding CP treatment and rehabilitation. FRE scores indicated that many responses were difficult for families to understand. While ChatGPT-4 may serve as a supportive source of general information, its outputs should be interpreted with caution, particularly in clinical contexts, and supervision and oversight by healthcare professionals remain essential for safe and effective use. WHAT'S KNOWN: • Children with cerebral palsy (CP) receive lifelong rehabilitation. Exercise plays a fundamental role in maintaining functional independence and quality of life, as well as physical development. The use of AI-based tools such as ChatGPT-4 for health information is increasingly widespread; however, uncertainties regarding the reliability, quality,and readability of these tools remain. WHAT IS NEW: • Our study shows that ChatGPT-4''s responses to questions about treatment and rehabilitation strategies for children with CP have moderate to good reliability and quality, but low readability.
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.