ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2026
Comparison of different artificial intelligence tools' answers to questions related to early intervention: ChatGPT versus Gemini.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 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
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the quality and readability of ChatGPT and Gemini's responses to frequently asked questions about early intervention for individuals with at-risk infants.
methodsTen frequently asked questions about early intervention were selected by three researchers (a child development specialist, a physiotherapist, and a midwife) from a list generated by ChatGPT and Gemini. Questions were sent to ChatGPT version 4.0 and Gemini 1.5, and initial responses were recorded without follow-up queries. Ten independent experts (two special education specialists, two child development specialists, two physiotherapists, two midwives, and two pediatricians) The quality of ChatGPT and Gemini's responses was assessed using a four-grade rating system. Readability levels were analyzed using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level through WordCalc software.
resultsOne of the answers given by ChatGPT was of higher quality than Gemini (p=0.025), while one answer given by Gemini was of higher quality than ChatGPT (p=0.033). The answers to the other questions were of similar quality, with Gemini having a lower level.
conclusionThis study compares the quality and readability of the answers given by artificial intelligence-based language models to demonstrate their potential to appeal to different user groups. While the models generally provided answers of similar quality, quantitative differences in readability were observed, suggesting potential suitability for different audiences. These findings contribute to understanding the role of AI tools in health communication.
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.