Although Gemini 3 and DeepSeek demonstrated greater readability in selected comparisons, median responses across all models remained above recommended patient-education reading levels, and LLM-generated responses should be regarded as supplementary rather than standalone sources of patient information regarding RA-TKA.
Abstract
Purpose
To compare the information quality, accuracy, and readability of patient-directed responses generated by large language models (LLMs), including ChatGPT-o3, ChatGPT-5.2, Gemini 3, and DeepSeek, regarding robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA).
Methods
Thirty frequently asked patient questions were identified using LLM outputs and Google search queries. Responses were evaluated for information quality using the DISCERN and Quality Analysis of Medical Artificial Intelligence (QAMAI) instruments, for clinical accuracy using a 5-point ordinal rating scale, and for understandability and readability using the PEMAT Understandability and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease scores.
Results
Median DISCERN scores were 46.0 (range, 35.0-50.0) for ChatGPT-o3, 45.75 (28.5-51.0) for ChatGPT-5.2, 43.75 (32.0-47.5) for Gemini 3, and 42.0 (32.0-50.0) for DeepSeek, with a significant overall difference among models (p < 0.001). The 5-point clinical accuracy scores were similar across models (median 4.0; p = 0.636). Median QAMAI scores were 23.0 for all four models, without a significant between-model difference (p = 0.462). PEMAT Understandability scores differed significantly among models (p < 0.001), with median scores of 90.0 for ChatGPT-o3 and ChatGPT-5.2, 88.0 for Gemini 3, and 85.0 for DeepSeek. Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease scores also differed significantly (p < 0.001); Gemini 3 demonstrated higher readability than both ChatGPT models, whereas DeepSeek demonstrated higher readability than ChatGPT-o3.
Conclusion
The evaluated LLMs demonstrated generally acceptable clinical accuracy but differed across measures of written information quality, understandability, and readability. No significant difference was detected using QAMAI. Although Gemini 3 and DeepSeek demonstrated greater readability in selected comparisons, median responses across all models remained above recommended patient-education reading levels. LLM-generated responses should therefore be regarded as supplementary rather than standalone sources of patient information regarding RA-TKA.
LLMs can support communication and education following spine surgery when used with structured prompting when used with structured prompting and ChatGPT and Claude showed the highest correctness and completeness, particularly for practitioner-directed answers.
S. Wegmann, T. Rosenkranz, Philipp Egenolf et al.· European spine journal· 0 citations
AI chatbots can generate information with potential clinical relevance in anterior implant dentistry; however, variability in informational reliability persists and expert supervision remains essential before integrating such tools into clinical education.
Dalndushe Abdulai, Raghıb Suradı, Mehran Moghbel· Journal of Health Sciences a...· 0 citations
Patients recovering from lumbar fusion increasingly seek guidance from large language model (LLM) chatbots when their surgeon is unavailable, but the accuracy, completeness, and safety-related content of such responses have not been compared across models for the postoperative period.
To compare the accuracy...
Ahmet Kürşat Kara, Ozan Işık· Frontiers in Surgery· 0 citations
ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-5 provide generally satisfactory yet non-comprehensive, limited-quality information at a level above tenth-grade regarding hallux rigidus fusion surgery.
Kamil Balaban, Mehmet Batu Ertan, Mahmut Kalem· Digital Health· 0 citations
There may be significant differences in how effectively LLMs support patients with surgical queries, particularly in areas needing detailed explanation, and usually required minimal clarification in areas needing detailed explanation.
T. Davis, B. Guevel, K. Logishetty et al.· Annals of the Royal College...· 0 citations
Although some models provided comparatively stronger patient education, none consistently produced sufficiently accessible information on robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, and these tools may supplement, but should not replace, individualized counseling by urologists and multidisciplinary prostate cancer teams.
Yang Liu, Rong-Kang Li, Peng Yu et al.· Journal of Robotic Surgery· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.