ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2026
Readability of dermatology patient education materials: a comparative analysis of Turkish Dermatology Association brochures and texts generated by ChatGPT and Gemini.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: In modern healthcare, patient education materials (PEMs) are essential for bridging the gap between clinical knowledge and patient understanding. However, in Türkiye, where 64.6% of the adult population possesses inadequate or problematic health literacy, traditional medical brochures often exceed recommended reading levels. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the readability of Turkish dermatology PEMs prepared by the Turkish Dermatology Association (TDA) with those generated by artificial intelligence (AI) models. Materials and methods: A total of 68 TDA PEMs were analyzed. Readability was assessed using the Ateşman Readability Index. Responses were generated by AI models to questions extracted from these brochures under two conditions: "default" (no specific instructions) and "low-literacy prompted" (instruction to write at a sixth-grade level). Statistical comparisons were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests to evaluate differences in readability scores between the original TDA brochures and the four AI-generated groups. Effect size was calculated manually for each pairwise comparison and reported as r values. Results: The original TDA brochures had a mean readability score of 59.08 ± 5.80 (95% CI: 57.69-60.44), categorized as "medium difficulty." All AI-generated groups demonstrated significantly higher readability scores compared with the TDA brochures (p < 0.05). Effect sizes for TDA versus AI group comparisons ranged from r = 0.242 to r = 0.753. In the default condition, Gemini Pro 2.5 produced more readable and consistent texts than ChatGPT-4.5 (66.63 versus 62.66; p = 0.004). While specific prompting significantly improved ChatGPT performance (p < 0.001), no significant change was observed in Gemini scores, which were already high in the default condition. Prompted Gemini achieved the highest overall mean score (68.98 ± 4.66). Conclusion: The linguistic complexity of TDA brochures may create a barrier for patients with limited health literacy. AI models, particularly when prompted with specific instructions, can generate dermatological PEMs with significantly higher readability levels.
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.