ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
Artificial intelligence-powered chatbots for oral anticancer drug patient information: an assessment of quality.
Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 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
The increasing use of oral anticancer drugs (OADs) in cancer therapy shifts greater responsibility towards patients, thereby also placing a higher informational burden on them. While intensified pharmacological/pharmaceutical care programs have proven beneficial for patients undergoing OAD treatment, their universal availability is currently limited. Given that patients frequently seek health information online, AI-powered chatbots may present a promising resource to address these increasing, yet often unmet information needs. This study aims to evaluate the readability, completeness of relevant information, and accuracy provided by AI-powered chatbots in response to patient questions about OAD treatment. Microsoft Bing's Copilot and Google's Gemini were queried in June 2024 on four patient questions regarding ten commonly prescribed and ten recently approved OADs in triplicate. Readability of chatbot answers was assessed using the Flesch reading-ease score (scale 0-100). Completeness of relevant information and accuracy were evaluated based on corresponding standardized written patient information materials. Both chatbots' answers demonstrated low readability according to the overall mean Flesch reading-ease scores of 38.8 (Copilot) and 50.9 (Gemini). Overall median completeness of relevant information of Copilot's and Gemini's answers was 61.1% (IQR, 35.3-78.7%) and 73.8% (IQR, 50.0-100.0%), respectively. Conversely, accuracy of chatbot answers was consistently high, with an overall median accuracy of 100.0% (IQR, 83.3-100.0%) for Copilot and 100.0% (IQR, 98.5-100.0%) for Gemini. AI-powered chatbots provide overall accurate information on OADs. However, their moderate completeness of relevant information and low readability may limit their current practical utility in meeting cancer patients' information need.
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.