TL;DR
AI chatbots showed high validity in answering testicular cancer–related questions, but important differences remained in information quality and readability.
Gemini significantly outperforms ChatGPT in response quality, reliability, and linguistic accessibility for breast cancer education, however, both models exceed the recommended sixth-grade reading level, indicating suboptimal optimization for general health literacy.
Background/Objectives: Penile cancer carries a disproportionate burden of stigma and delayed presentation, with affected men increasingly turning to artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots as an anonymous information source. This study evaluated the quality, readability, understandability, actionability and clinical accu...
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the quality of responses from four publicly available LLMs (ChatGPT-4o, Claude 3.7, Gemini 2.5, and Copilot) to frequently asked questions (FAQs) in pediatric urology. METHODS FAQs were generated using standardized prompts and submitted to each LLM using parent-centered instructions. Two board-c...
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, and Gemini’s acceptable overall performance demonstrates acceptable overall performance.
Assessment of the quality, readability, and understandability of LLM‐generated content for elective scrotal procedures for benign pathology found LLMs provide high quality, understandable and mostly accurate patient educational content, however, outputs are written at excessively high reading levels, potentially limiti...
Public-facing chatbots may support general patient education but should not replace individualized clinician-led prognostic communication as public-facing chatbots differed substantially in safety, reliability, communication quality, and readability.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.
