ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2026
Assessment of patient information quality provided by artificial intelligence-based large language models on cryptorchidism: a comparison of ChatGPT-5, Gemini, and Grok.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the responses generated by ChatGPT-5, Gemini, and Grok to the "six most frequently asked patient questions" on cryptorchidism published by the European Association of Urology, assessing them in terms of quality, understandability, actionability, and readability.
methodsChatGPT-5, Gemini, and Grok were asked these six frequently asked questions listed on the European Association of Urology patient information page on cryptorchidism. The quality of the responses was evaluated using the Quality Assessment Tool for Patient Health Information instrument, understandability and actionability were assessed using Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool scores, and readability was measured with the Coleman-Liau Index. All evaluations were performed by four urologists.
resultsAmong the three artificial intelligence-based large language models, Gemini achieved the highest mean Quality Assessment Tool for Patient Health Information and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials scores. Kruskal-Wallis analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in Quality Assessment Tool for Patient Health Information scores among the groups (p=0.005); pairwise comparisons revealed that Gemini scored significantly higher than ChatGPT-5 (p=0.001). No significant differences were observed among the models for Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool-Understandability Section or Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool-Actionability Section scores (p>0.05). In the readability analysis, Grok had the highest Coleman-Liau Index value (Coleman-Liau Index=14.68), and all models produced texts requiring a university-level reading ability. Although the Gemini model achieved higher overall quality scores, all artificial intelligence-based large language models provided good-quality but difficult-to-read information.
conclusionThe responses generated by all three models demonstrated high levels of understandability and strong actionability. We anticipate that future, more advanced versions of artificial intelligence-based large language models will further improve these outcomes and contribute positively to the existing literature.
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.