ArticleHealth science reports2026
Reliability, Readability, and Safety of Generative AI Chatbots for Osteoporosis Health Counseling: A Multidimensional Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.
Article in Health science reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Generative artificial intelligence chatbots are increasingly used for health information, but their reliability, readability, and safety in osteoporosis counseling remain uncertain. This study compared four widely available chatbots under standardized conditions. Methods: Twenty-five standardized osteoporosis questions were submitted once to ChatGPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Copilot, and Perplexity Pro, generating 100 responses. Two model-blinded specialists evaluated the final responses using DISCERN, EQIP, the Global Quality Scale, JAMA benchmarks, and the NOHARM framework. Six automated indices assessed readability. Because each question was answered by all four models, outcomes were compared using Friedman tests, followed by paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm adjustment. Results: DISCERN scores differed across models ( Conclusion: In this set of osteoporosis questions, retrieval-enabled systems achieved higher scores on selected information-quality measures but produced more difficult text. These findings are limited to the tested models, prompts, and evaluation period and do not establish a universal effect of retrieval augmentation.
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.