Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42404502›Full record

ArticleHealth science reports2026

Assessing Readability and DISCERN Quality of Osteoporosis Education Materials Generated by ChatGPT and Deepseek for Diverse Health Literacy Levels: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Junfang Miao, Guanghu Sun, Yichao Wang, Fangying Li, Fangli Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health science reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Junfang MiaoCardiovascular Department II The First People's Hospital of Baiyin Baiyin China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1187-8631
Guanghu SunXiaotieshan Mine Baiyin Nonferrous Group Co. Ltd Baiyin China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3473-0300
Yichao WangBaiyin Colored Blue Bird Digital Technology Co. Ltd Baiyin China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8729-9365
Fangying LiBreast Section The First People's Hospital of Baiyin Baiyin China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4293-2646
Fangli LiNursing Department The First People's Hospital of Baiyin Baiyin China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for patient education, but their output quality across health literacy levels is unknown. This cross-sectional study compared ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5, DeepSeek-V3.1, and DeepSeek-R2 in generating osteoporosis education materials tailored to low, moderate, and high health literacy. Methods: Six clinical domains were posed to each LLM, with prompts adapted for three literacy tiers per model (18 outputs per model). Outputs were aggregated into 12 composite texts (4 models × 3 tiers). Three blinded clinicians assessed information quality using DISCERN (0-80) and readability using Flesch-Kincaid (FKGL, lower = easier). Results: Mean DISCERN scores ranged 36-52/80 ("fair"); no output reached "excellent" (> 70/80). DeepSeek-V3.1 provided the highest treatment detail for high literacy and best low-literacy readability (FKGL 3.99). ChatGPT-5 performed most consistently across tiers. Median readability ranged from grade 4.8 to 10.2. All outputs lacked citations, publication dates, quantitative risk data, and uncertainty statements. Conclusion: LLMs can rapidly generate readable osteoporosis education, but current outputs require supplementation with references, risk statistics, and updated transparency before clinical use.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceChatGPTDeepSeekDISCERNhealth literacyosteoporosisreadability

Identifiers

PMID42404502
PMCPMC13332862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.