ArticleCureus2026
A Cross-Sectional Study Evaluating the Quality of AI-Generated Patient Education Guides on Diet and Exercise for Diabetes, Hypertension, and Obesity Using ChatGPT-4o, Google Gemini 1.5, Claude Sonnet 4, Perplexity, and Grok.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiabetes, obesity, and hypertension are common chronic conditions in which the role of lifestyle alteration is central to control. Education materials may accompany these interventions, but will only be helpful if clear and credible. Since the development of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and Google Gemini, the potential of contributing to the production of health education materials should be seriously taken into account.
aimThe aim of this study is to conduct a cross-sectional comparison of five LLMs (ChatGPT-4o, Google Gemini 2.5, Claude Sonnet 4, Grok 3, and Perplexity) in generating patient education brochures on diet and exercise for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, evaluating their readability, originality, and reliability. PRIMARY
objectiveThe primary objective is to compare the readability and reliability of AI-generated patient education materials. SECONDARY
objectiveThe secondary objective is to assess lexical complexity and originality of generated content.
methodsThis cross-sectional study used standardized questions to generate brochures based on each response provided by the LLMs. Outputs were evaluated for readability (Flesch-Kincaid test), word complexity, novelty (PapersOwl plagiarism software), and consistency (modified DISCERN instrument). Descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA were used, where p < 0.05 was deemed significant.
resultsChatGPT produced the shortest and most readable content, evidenced by its lowest grade level (5.2 ± 0.8) and highest Flesch Reading Ease rating (70.0 ± 5.1). Gemini and Claude produced longer, more elaborate brochures that received higher reliability ratings (3.0 ± 0.0 and 3.0 ± 1.0, respectively) but were at higher reading levels (≈ 9th grade). Grok obtained medium for all the measures, while Perplexity produced shorter responses (≈ 444 words) but the lowest reliability score (1.3 ± 0.6). There were no major differences in originality scores across the tools.
conclusionEvery model had a strength: ChatGPT in readability, Gemini and Claude in reliability, Grok in balance, and Perplexity in conciseness. Every model demonstrated at least one parameter where it outperformed the others. The results validate LLMs in terms of producing patient-comprehensible leaflets, but human editing, updation with the latest guidelines, and human supervision will be needed before clinical application.
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.