ArticleDigital health
Evaluation of free-access artificial intelligence chatbots in preoperative patient education about general anesthesia: A comparative study of ChatGPT, gemini, and copilot.
Article in Digital health. 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
Objective: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are increasingly used by patients seeking medical information. However, the accuracy and educational quality of such tools in the context of anesthesia remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the appropriateness of responses generated by three widely accessible AI platforms-ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot-regarding frequently asked questions about general anesthesia. Methods: Fifty anesthesia-related questions were developed by two anesthesiologists and categorized into four domains: General Information and Process, Safety and Risks, Pain, Comfort, and Recovery, and Preoperative Preparation. Each question was entered in English into the free, publicly available versions of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot. Ten blinded anesthesiologists rated the responses using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very inappropriate to 5 = very appropriate). Mean scores were compared using one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc tests, and inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cronbach's α. Results: ChatGPT achieved the highest overall mean score (4.68 ± 0.50), followed by Gemini (4.22 ± 0.63) and Copilot (3.28 ± 0.50), with significant differences among all platforms (p < 0.001). ChatGPT consistently outperformed the others across all four domains. Qualitative observations from evaluator comments suggested that ChatGPT's concise summaries improved readability, Gemini provided more structured responses with more scholarly-style references, and Copilot was clear but often less detailed. Inter-rater reliability was high (Cronbach's α = 0.89). Conclusion: Among free-access AI chatbots, ChatGPT provided the most accurate and comprehensive explanations regarding general anesthesia. While Gemini and Copilot offered partial value, professional oversight remains essential to ensure safe and contextually accurate patient education in preoperative care.
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.