ArticleScientific reports2026
Reliability and readability of five AI chatbots for concussion health advice across retrieval augmented and pretrained models.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative AI is rapidly entering patient education workflows, yet its safety profile for concussion management remains undefined. Utilizing the CHART framework, this cross-sectional audit assessed five platforms, specifically isolating retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) architectures against standard pre-trained Large Language Models (LLMs). We extracted 11 high-volume patient queries from Google Trends and administered them via a zero-shot protocol. Two blinded neurosurgeons then scored the outputs against the 2023 Amsterdam Consensus Statement using four validated instruments: DISCERN and EQIP to evaluate treatment and information quality, GQS for global content quality, and JAMA benchmarks for transparency. Reliability metrics diverged significantly across models (DISCERN and EQIP, p < 0.001). Perplexity Pro secured the highest DISCERN (47.36 ± 4.84) and EQIP (65.00 ± 5.48) values, statistically surpassing foundational models like ChatGPT and Gemini (p < 0.01) - a performance gap likely driven by its RAG design. In contrast, GQS scores did not differ significantly across models (p = 0.373), and JAMA-based transparency remained uniformly low (p < 0.001). Readability was assessed using six standard indices (FRES, FKGL, GFI, CLI, ARI, and SMOG), revealing that all models exceeded the 6th-grade reading level; most surpassed 10th-grade, with Perplexity Pro lowest at FKGL = 7.46. Although retrieval-augmented systems improve clinical accuracy, current iterations fail to provide transparent or readable advice. Clinical integration therefore requires rigorous human-in-the-loop verification and a shift toward plain-language algorithm optimization.
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.