ArticleRadiology advances2026
Patients prefer ChatGPT to institutional websites for questions on radiation-based imaging exams: international mixed-methods study.
Article in Radiology advances, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radiology-risk communication affects multiple clinical specialties that use ionizing radiation, and many patients seek related information online. Prior expert evaluations found comparable performance between ChatGPT-generated and radiology-risk answers from official institutions, but patient perspectives have not been assessed. Purpose: To assess patients' perceptions of ChatGPT versus human-generated radiology-risk information. Methods and Materials: From December 2024 to March 2025, patients at 3 hospitals in the United States, Switzerland, and Lebanon were randomly assigned to 1 of 5 common radiology-risk questions. Participants, blinded to source, provided subjective ratings of both ChatGPT‑3.5 and human-generated institutional responses on 7-point Likert scales for satisfaction (primary outcome), comprehensibility, trust, and reassurance. Quantitative comparisons were performed with Inverse Normalizing Transformation, and free-text comments were analyzed using thematic coding. Results: A total of 328 patients participated (34% aged 18-39 years, 33% aged 40-59 years, 31% aged 60-79 years, 3% aged ≥80 years; 188 female). ChatGPT responses were rated significantly higher than human responses for satisfaction (0.70-point advantage; Conclusions: Unlike experts, patients preferred ChatGPT-generated responses to institutional materials for radiology risk questions. This divergence highlights the need for patient-centered communication and suggests that large language model-based styles, implemented with expert oversight, may improve the perceived clarity and trustworthiness of educational materials in medical specialties that use ionizing radiation.
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.