ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026
Mapping the Reliability-Readability Gap in the Education of Patients With Age-Related Macular Degeneration Across 6 Large Language Models: Comparative Evaluation Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence-generated health information is increasingly used by patients, but its reliability, visible transparency indicators, and readability remain uncertain in specialized ophthalmic conditions such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Objective: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the informational reliability, visible transparency indicators, overall quality, and readability of responses generated by 6 publicly accessible large language models (LLMs) to AMD-related patient-facing prompts under a zero-shot, single-turn prompting scenario. Methods: Thirty English-language AMD-related prompts were curated from Google Trends, the 2023 Chinese AMD guideline, and the 2025 American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern. Chinese guideline-derived prompts were translated and reviewed before model querying. Each finalized prompt was entered verbatim into ChatGPT-5.1-auto, DeepSeek-v3.2, Gemini-2.5-Flash-Thinking, Grok 4, Claude-Sonnet 4.5, and Qwen3-Max between October 10 and November 25, 2025. Two senior ophthalmologists (ZL and XM) blinded to model identity independently scored all responses using DISCERN, Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP), Global Quality Scale, and Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria, with adjudication for disagreements. Readability was assessed using 6 standard formulas against a sixth-grade benchmark. Between-model differences were analyzed using Friedman tests with Holm-adjusted pairwise comparisons. Results: A total of 180 responses were analyzed. Interrater agreement was substantial to near-perfect across reliability instruments (κ=0.72-0.97). No model met the recommended sixth-grade readability target. Grok 4 achieved the highest scores on reliability-related instruments, including DISCERN (mean 46.40, SD 7.43) and EQIP (mean 74.33, SD 9.07), whereas DeepSeek-v3.2 generated the most readable responses, with the highest Flesch Reading Ease Score (mean 48.23, SD 9.16) and lowest Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (mean 9.95, SD 1.87). Significant between-model differences were observed across all reliability and readability metrics (all P<.001). Conclusions: Under zero-shot, single-turn prompting conditions, the evaluated public LLMs showed substantial model-dependent differences in AMD-related patient education quality and readability. No model met the sixth-grade readability benchmark, including those with comparatively stronger reliability performance. These findings support clinician oversight, readability optimization, and further evaluation before LLM-generated AMD information is used directly in patient-facing settings.
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.