ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2026
An analysis of AI platforms: Can AI provide genetics education?
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the introduction, free access, and proliferation of various artificial intelligence (AI) in unique platforms, patients have access to more summarized information than ever. Our study aimed to explore the use of AI chatbots to improve patients' understanding of genetic testing. Thirty-nine frequently asked questions (FAQs) on genetic testing, including generic, BRCA-related, and Lynch syndrome-based questions, were asked to five AI chatbots (ChatGPT 3.5, Google Gemini, Reddit Answers, Bootcamp, and DeepSeek). Answers were individually assessed in a blind, randomized survey by two gynecologic oncologists and two genetic counselors on a 4-point scale (1: accurate and comprehensive, 2: accurate but inadequate, 3: incomplete, partially inaccurate, and/or outdated, 4: completely inaccurate) and statistically evaluated with ANOVA and Tukey testing. A Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) readability score and word count for each answer were obtained. Overall ratings show that no single AI platform outperforms the others in accuracy or readability, though Reddit Answers was notably worse. On average, ChatGPT 3.5, Google Gemini, Reddit Answers, Bootcamp, and DeepSeek received scores of 1.5, 1.6, 2.4, 1.6, and 1.4, respectively. The FKGL readability scores of answers across all AI platforms are consistently higher than the reading level of the average American (ChatGPT 3.5: 13.5, Google Gemini: 13.3, Reddit Answers: 12.1, Bootcamp: 14.6, DeepSeek: 14.2). Although AI chatbots have the potential to be a great resource for patients seeking genetic testing, especially for foundational genetic knowledge, this study highlights the importance of genetic counseling and education by healthcare professionals. Because genetic testing is unique to each patient, the answers produced by AI chatbots are not always applicable to each individual.
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.