ArticleJPGN reports2026
Quality of artificial intelligence-generated responses on pediatric celiac disease: Comparative assessment of Open AI ChatGPT and Google Gemini.
Article in JPGN reports, 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.
- An AI-driven evidence ecosystem for cardiometabolic nutrition: bridging the gap from multiomics to patient empowerment.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Many individuals use artificial intelligence tools such as Open AI's ChatGPT and Google's Gemini to assess their symptoms or learn about a disease. However, studies to evaluate responses provided by artificial intelligence tools are lacking. This study aims to evaluate and compare ChatGPT and Gemini in answering pediatric celiac disease-specific questions in terms of performance across accuracy, safety, completeness, and understandability. Methods: We developed 34 questions that mimicked questions that parents ask about pediatric celiac disease in four categories: disease symptoms and definition, diagnosis, gluten challenge, and management. Questions were posed to ChatGPT 5.0 and Gemini Pro 2.5. Responses were compared with North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (NASPGHAN) and European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) guidelines, or clinical best practices when guidelines were absent. Three board certified Pediatric Gastroenterologists rated each response on a 5-point Likert scale across four domains: accuracy, safety, completeness, and understandability. Word count and Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL) were recorded. Results: Average scores were ≥4.5 for ChatGPT and ≥4.3 for Gemini across all four domains. Gemini responses were significantly longer and had higher FKGL. Interclass correlation coefficients showed good agreement for all rating domains except for Gemini safety ratings and understandability ratings for both models. Conclusions: ChatGPT and Gemini both generated highly accurate, safe, complete, and understandable information for common questions about celiac disease. Performance decreased when guidelines were lacking or there was clinical ambiguity. However, readability scores (FKGL) for both models exceeded standards for patient education recommendations for sixth to eighth grade reading level or below suggesting there may be barrier to understandability for the general population.
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.