ArticlePloS one2026
Comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and gemini responses to patient-oriented questions on breast cancer.
Article in PloS one, 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
backgroundBreast cancer, the most common malignancy among women, remains a major global public health concern. With the rapid growth of artificial intelligence-based language models, it is essential to evaluate their potential roles in patient education. This study compared ChatGPT and Gemini in responding to patient-oriented questions about breast cancer and its surgical treatment regarding scientific accuracy, clarity, and unnecessary detail.
methodsForty frequently asked questions were collected from Turkish online sources. Both models were queried under identical conditions on August 13, 2025, and the responses were anonymized for blinded evaluation. Four general surgeons experienced in breast surgery independently assessed each response using a five-point Likert scale across three domains: scientific accuracy, clarity, and unnecessary detail.
resultsResponse lengths were recorded and compared. ChatGPT achieved significantly higher median scores than Gemini in scientific accuracy [4.75 (3.50-5.00) vs. 4.25 (3.50-5.00); p < 0.001], clarity [4.75 (3.50-5.00) vs. 4.25 (3.25-5.00); p = 0.005], and unnecessary detail [5.00 (5.00-5.00) vs. 4.50 (3.50-5.00); p < 0.001]. The overall median score was 4.83 (4.08-5.00) for ChatGPT and 4.33 (3.50-4.92) for Gemini (p < 0.001). Gemini's responses were significantly longer (244 ± 84 vs. 170 ± 47 words; p < 0.001).
conclusionBoth models demonstrated acceptable overall performance. However, ChatGPT's higher scores and shorter, more focused responses indicate that it may be a more efficient tool for addressing breast cancer-related patient questions. In their current form, these models should not be used for diagnostic or clinical decision-making purposes. AI-generated health information should be used only under expert supervision and for educational or supportive purposes.
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.