ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)2026
Supporting patient understanding of cervical and ovarian cancer: how well does AI perform?
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs the public increasingly interacts with artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, we compared the answers from five AI chatbots to standardized questions that patients might ask about ovarian and cervical cancer.
methodsChatGPT 3.5, Google Gemini 2.0, Reddit Answers, Bootcamp, and DeepSeek were queried with 15 frequently asked questions (FAQs) on cervical cancer and 11 on ovarian cancer. In a blinded, randomized survey, each deidentified response was independently assessed by three gynecologic oncologists using a 4-point scale (1, accurate and comprehensive; 2, accurate but inadequate; 3, accurate but outdated or inaccurate; 4, completely inaccurate). Readability (Flesch-Kincaid grade level) and word count were recorded.
resultsFor cervical cancer FAQs, ChatGPT 3.5, Google Gemini 2.0, Reddit Answers, Bootcamp, and DeepSeek received scores of 1.4, 1.6, 2.7, 1.5, and 1.5, respectively. For ovarian cancer FAQs, average scores were 1.3, 1.4, 2.5, 1.2, and 1.4, respectively. All AI chatbot responses were written at a reading level above 11th grade, making them generally difficult for the average American to read.
conclusionsAlthough generally rated as accurate and adequate, the answers were frequently off-topic and not generalizable. Healthcare providers should be aware of unintentionally generated misinformation to better counsel patients.
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.