ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Performance of artificial intelligence chatbots in providing feeding management and oral health guidance for children with cleft lip and palate: ChatGPT 5.2 vs Gemini 3 Pro.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to comparatively evaluate the quality, reliability, and readability of responses generated by ChatGPT 5.2 and Gemini 3 Pro regarding feeding management and oral health guidance for children with cleft lip and palate (CLP). A cross-sectional design was used. Both models were asked 20 questions on feeding and oral-dental care in infants and children with CLP. Response quality was assessed using the Global Quality Score (GQS) and the CLEAR tool, reliability with the modified-DISCERN (m-DISCERN), and readability with the Flesch Reading Ease (FRES) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). The mean GQS was significantly higher for Gemini 3 Pro than for ChatGPT 5.2 (4.51 ± 0.29 vs. 3.76 ± 0.33; p < 0.001). The CLEAR tool score was likewise significantly higher in Gemini 3 Pro compared with ChatGPT 5.2 (22.95 ± 0.94 vs. 19.40 ± 1.47; p < 0.001), and the m-DISCERN scores were also significantly higher for Gemini 3 Pro (4.0 [4.0-4.0]) than for ChatGPT 5.2 (3.0 [2.0-3.0]; p < 0.001). The FRES values were significantly higher for Gemini 3 Pro compared with ChatGPT 5.2 (49.50 ± 10.33 vs. 23.60 ± 14.48; p < 0.001), whereas the FKGL values were significantly lower (9.77 ± 1.54 vs. 13.44 ± 2.81; p < 0.001). Correlation analysis revealed strong positive correlations between GQS and CLEAR (r = 0.753) and between GQS and m-DISCERN (r = 0.740), while FKGL showed significant negative correlations with all quality and reliability measures (-0.566≤ r ≤ -0.484; all p < 0.001).
conclusionGemini 3 Pro outperformed ChatGPT 5.2 across content quality, reliability, and readability. Although both models can support guidance in CLP care, AI chatbot outputs should be used as complementary tools alongside professional clinical guidance. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Large language model (LLM) chatbots are increasingly used as sources of health information for patients and families. • Existing studies on cleft lip and palate largely focus on single-model evaluations. WHAT IS NEW: • This study provides the first comparative analysis of ChatGPT 5.2 and Gemini 3 Pro for feeding management and oral-health guidance in CLP care. • Gemini 3 Pro demonstrated higher content quality, reliability, and readability than ChatGPT 5.2, indicating model-dependent variability in chatbot performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42287436What 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.