ArticleSurgery2025
De novo generation of colorectal patient educational materials using large language models: Prompt engineering key to improved readability.
Article in Surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of large language models in generating and optimizing educational materials for neonatal home oxygen therapy.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- AI-generated explanations in kidney transplantation: accuracy vs. readability and implications for patient education.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Foundation models: Insights and implications for gastrointestinal cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImproving patient education has been shown to improve clinical outcomes and reduce disparities, though such efforts can be labor intensive. Large language models may serve as an accessible method to improve patient educational material. The aim of this study was to compare readability between existing educational materials and those generated by large language models.
methodsBaseline colorectal surgery educational materials were gathered from a large academic institution (n = 52). Three prompts were entered into Perplexity and ChatGPT 3.5 for each topic: a Basic prompt that simply requested patient educational information the topic, an Iterative prompt that repeated instruction asking for the information to be more health literate, and a Metric-based prompt that requested a sixth-grade reading level, short sentences, and short words. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level or Grade Level, Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease or Ease, and Modified Grade Level scores were calculated for all materials, and unpaired t tests were used to compare mean scores between baseline and documents generated by artificial intelligence platforms.
resultsOverall existing materials were longer than materials generated by the large language models across categories and prompts: 863-956 words vs 170-265 (ChatGPT) and 220-313 (Perplexity), all P < .01. Baseline materials did not meet sixth-grade readability guidelines based on grade level (Grade Level 7.0-9.8 and Modified Grade Level 9.6-11.5) or ease of readability (Ease 53.1-65.0). Readability of materials generated by a large language model varied by prompt and platform. Overall, ChatGPT materials were more readable than baseline materials with the Metric-based prompt: Grade Level 5.2 vs 8.1, Modified Grade Level 7.3 vs 10.3, and Ease 70.5 vs 60.4, all P < .01. In contrast, Perplexity-generated materials were significantly less readable except for those generated with the Metric-based prompt, which did not statistically differ.
conclusionBoth existing materials and the majority of educational materials created by large language models did not meet readability recommendations. The exception to this was with ChatGPT materials generated with a Metric-based prompt that consistently improved readability scores from baseline and met recommendations in terms of the average Grade Level score. The variability in performance highlights the importance of the prompt used with large language models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.