ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Evaluating the accuracy, reliability, and readability of AI chatbots in delivering postpartum depression information.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postpartum depression (PPD) is a common perinatal psychiatric disorder with significant implications for maternal and infant health. Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have emerged as widely accessible tools for health information, but their performance in providing accurate, reliable, and readable PPD related information remains underexplored. Methods: We evaluated six AI chatbots, ChatGPT-5, ChatGPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 4.5, DeepSeek-V3.2, DeepSeek-R1, and Gemini 2.5 Pro, using 200 standardized multiple choice questions (MCQs) on PPD to assess validity. ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1 were included only in the MCQ based validity analysis as earlier version comparators. Reliability and readability were further assessed using 20 core public education questions in the four latest models: ChatGPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4.5, DeepSeek-V3.2, and Gemini 2.5 Pro. Chatbot performance was assessed across three dimensions: validity, reliability, and readability. Each MCQ was presented three times independently, and each core public education question was assessed once per model. Results: In the six model MCQ based validity analysis, ChatGPT-5 achieved the highest overall accuracy on MCQs (97.50% ± 0.50%). In the four models reliability and readability analyses, ChatGPT-5 obtained the highest DISCERN, EQIP, and GQS scores, suggesting relatively better content quality and user oriented usefulness. However, JAMA benchmark scores were low across all models, including ChatGPT-5, indicating limited transparency, source attribution, currency, and disclosure. All models produced outputs exceeding the recommended sixth grade reading level, although ChatGPT-5 and Gemini 2.5 Pro were relatively more accessible. Conclusion: AI chatbots, particularly ChatGPT-5, showed potential as supplementary tools for providing postpartum depression related information, especially in standardized MCQ based assessment. However, this study did not evaluate clinical safety, patient comprehension, user behavior, or real world effectiveness, and suboptimal readability may limit accessibility for users with lower health or digital literacy. Inadequate transparency, limited source attribution, and suboptimal readability indicate that AI chatbots should not be used as autonomous sources of postpartum mental health guidance and should not replace professional assessment or care.
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.