ArticleMovement disorders clinical practice2026
Quality and Readability of ChatGPT Performance on Parkinson's Disease.
Article in Movement disorders clinical practice, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is increasingly used for medical education and healthcare counseling.
objectiveTo evaluate the reliability, quality, usefulness, and readability of ChatGPT-4o responses to professional medical quizzes and patient frequently asked questions (FAQs) about Parkinson's disease (PD).
methodsTwenty-two quizzes were put into ChatGPT-4o and also given to two neurologists. ChatGPT answers to 20 FAQs were analyzed by three neurologists using the modified Discern score, the Global Quality score, and the Usefulness score. Text readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, the Flesch Reading Ease Score, and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook.
resultsThe agreement between the neurologists and ChatGPT was fair. The answers to the FAQs were of good quality, but unreliable and difficult to read.
conclusionsChatGPT may be an additional valid tool for professional medical education. The quality of the answers to the FAQs is good, but the text is aimed primarily at highly educated individuals. The readability and reliability of the output would likely improve by providing the chatbot with specific prompts.
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.