ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Evaluating the quality and readability of AI-generated information on adenomyosis: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT and deepseek regarding query-model consistency.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To systematically evaluate and compare the quality, readability, and query-model consistency of adenomyosis-related content generated by two large language models, ChatGPT (GPT-5) and DeepSeek (R1). Materials and methods: In total, 25 high-frequency patient queries were obtained based on Google Trends. Each query was processed using two interaction modes, namely, three consecutive repetitions and three independent cycles, on both large language models (ChatGPT GPT-5.0-web, released December 2025; DeepSeek R1-web, released November 2025). The generated texts ( Results: In the cyclic mode, both ChatGPT and DeepSeek maintained stable output text readability and quality. DeepSeek-generated text demonstrated significantly superior readability across both interaction modes (lower ARI: 11.32 vs. 14.56, Conclusion: The findings of this study demonstrate that when generating information on adenomyosis, DeepSeek outperforms ChatGPT in terms of readability and several information quality metrics, whereas ChatGPT exhibits greater consistency in its outputs. However, the reading difficulty of texts generated by both models exceeds the level suitable for the general public, representing a key practical constraint limiting direct public use. Based on these results, AI chatbots may serve as complementary tools in patient education; however, their outputs should undergo expert review and be optimized for comprehensibility before broader clinical application. For clinicians and patients, these findings emphasize the importance of critically appraising AI-generated information and using it as a supplement to, rather than a substitute for, professional medical consultation.
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.