ArticleDigital health
Quality evaluation of AI-generated diabetes-related health education texts from different generative models.
Article in Digital health. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the increasingly widespread application of artificial intelligence technology, generative artificial intelligence has become an important tool for people to obtain health information due to its convenience and flexibility in health education or health promotion. However, the readability and accuracy of such AI-generated materials still need to be evaluated. Objective: To comprehensively evaluate and compare the quality and readability of health education texts about diabetes generated by different generative artificial intelligence (AI) models. Methods: We followed a fixed list of ten questions without modifications, systematically presenting the same inquiries to seven generative AI models and exporting their results into defined forms in the text generation process. Five experts were invited to evaluate the texts based on five criteria. The readability index, a readability formula, was used to evaluate the text's readability. Kendall's coefficient of concordance was employed to assess inter-rater reliability. The linear mixed model was used to compare the differences in five dimensions and readability among the health education texts generated by different AI models. Results: Kimi-K1.5 and Doubao attained the highest overall scores in scientific accuracy, whereas iFlytek Spark-V3.5 received lower scores compared to other models. In terms of practical value and logical clarity, Kimi-K1.5 received the highest scores, while iFlytek Spark-V3.5 scored the lowest. In the dimension of reference basis, Kimi-K1.5 and ERNIE Bot-3.5 received relatively high scores, while iFlytek Spark-V3.5 and Doubao scored lower. In the assessment of text readability, higher R-value scores indicate poorer readability. The health education text generated by Doubao had the highest R-value, while iFlytek Spark-V3.5 had the lowest R-value. Conclusions: Kimi-K1.5 performed better across multiple assessment parameters in the overall evaluation of diabetes-related health education texts created by different generative AI models. Notably, among all the models tested, iFlytek Spark-V3.5 showed the best readability.
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.