ArticleCancers2026
Comparative Evaluation of a New Autonomous AI Agent Versus Frontier LLMs for AI-Generated Patient Information Sheets on Pediatric Pathologies.
Article in Cancers, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAt present, there are very limited studies evaluating autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) agents in oral oncology or healthcare education, and no studies have directly compared traditional frontier large language models (LLMs) with autonomous AI agents in the field of pediatric oral oncologic pathology. This study evaluated the performance of AI LLMs and an autonomous AI scientific agent in generating engaging and accessible patient information sheets for common pediatric oral pathologic conditions and rare head and neck tumors. The development of high-quality patient education materials is particularly important in pediatric pathology because parents must often navigate complex and emotionally sensitive diagnoses, including rare tumors and developmental lesions, for which accessible, patient-friendly educational resources are frequently unavailable. AI-generated patient information sheets therefore represent a potential strategy to improve communication, understanding, and shared decision-making for families facing these uncommon conditions.
methodsAI-generated patient information sheets from popular frontier chatbots on various pediatric pathological conditions and rare tumors were evaluated by five platforms (Eli5a v2.0, ChatGPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Perplexity and Doximity), in a blinded fashion, by three expert evaluators using the Global Quality Score (GQS), DISCERN score, understandability score and actionability score using PEMAT, and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. Because the same 20 conditions were assessed on every platform, observations were paired; platforms were compared using Friedman tests with paired Wilcoxon signed-rank post hoc tests and Holm correction, and interrater reliability was quantified using an absolute-agreement intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsPlatform differences were significant for all five outcomes (all
conclusionNo single platform was superior across all evaluated domains. Claude Sonnet 4.6 led in overall quality whereas Eli5a v2.0 achieved the highest understandability and the most appropriatereading grade level. Eli5a's actionability was high but did not differ significantly from Perplexity or Doximity. These findings indicate a trade-off between information quality and reliability on one hand and lay accessibility on the other. Platform selection should therefore be matched to the communication task, and all AI-generated patient materials require clinician review before use.
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.