ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Reliability and readability of AI chatbot responses to patient questions about robot-assisted radical cystectomy.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is a complex procedure that requires patients to understand surgical indications, urinary diversion, perioperative treatment, complications, recovery, and long-term functional outcomes. Although artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are increasingly used to obtain medical information, their suitability for RARC patient education remains unclear. We conducted a cross-sectional comparative evaluation of four contemporary AI chatbots: ChatGPT-5, DeepSeek-V4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and Gemini 3.5 Pro. A set of 20 core patient-education questions on RARC was developed by three senior urologic experts. Chatbot responses were assessed using DISCERN, the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool, the Global Quality Scale, and JAMA benchmark criteria. Readability was evaluated using the Automated Readability Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning Fog Index, and SMOG. Reliability scores differed significantly across models for DISCERN, EQIP, and GQS, while JAMA benchmark criteria were summarized descriptively as transparency signals. DeepSeek-V4 achieved the highest mean scores for DISCERN, EQIP, and GQS, while ChatGPT-5 and DeepSeek-V4 showed the strongest JAMA benchmark performance. Gemini 3.5 Pro generally had the lowest reliability and transparency scores. Readability also varied across models. DeepSeek-V4 produced the most readable responses overall, whereas Gemini 3.5 Pro generated the most complex text. However, all models exceeded the recommended sixth-grade reading level, and FRES scores remained below the recommended threshold. Contemporary AI chatbots generated responses with variable presentation quality, transparency, and readability for common RARC patient-education questions. Because factual accuracy was not directly assessed, these tools should not be interpreted as validated sources of clinical guidance and should not replace individualized counseling by urologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42484768What 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.