ArticleOtolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery2025
Artificial Intelligence Models for Dysphonia Patient Education.
Article in Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Federated multimodal AI for precision-equitable diabetes care.Frontiers in digital health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEvaluate and compare artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot responses to queries extrapolated from statements by Dysphonia International (DI). STUDY
designCross-sectional analysis.
settingOnline using ChatGPT, Google AI Overview (GAO), and DI.
methodsTwo board-certified otolaryngologists and an otolaryngology resident each blindly rated ChatGPT, GAO, and DI responses to spasmodic dysphonia, muscle tension dysphonia, and vocal tremor questions. Response comprehensiveness, accuracy, appropriateness to patients, and patient safety were graded on a 5-point Likert scale. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), and average word count assessed readability. Analysis was performed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD); significance was set at P < .05.
resultsChatGPT was significantly more comprehensive than both GAO (P < .01) and DI (P = .0357). ChatGPT was significantly more accurate than both GAO (P < .01) and DI (P < .01), while GAO was more accurate than DI (P < .01). ChatGPT was found to be significantly more patient-friendly than both GAO (P < .01) and DI (P < .01). ChatGPT had significantly safer recommendations than GAO (P < .01). ChatGPT had a significantly higher FKGL than GAO (P < .01), and a lower FRES than both GAO (P < .01) and DI (P < .01), indicating a more difficult reading level. All resources exceeded the recommended FKGL and GFI scores as well as the FRES of 90 to 100. Interrater reliability was 0.8.
conclusionChatGPT performed significantly better than GAO and DI regarding comprehensiveness, accuracy, appropriateness, and was an overall safer AI resource to use than GAO. All resources were above the recommended reading grade level. AI models prove to be a formidable alternative resource for patient-centered clinical information.
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.