ArticleCureus2025
Reliability of AI Tools in Generating Patient Education Brochures for Bariatric Surgery: An Observational Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient education plays a key role in helping individuals understand their health conditions and participate in treatment. With the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI), tools like ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) and Google Gemini (Mountain View, CA, USA) are increasingly being used to generate patient information. This study assessed how readable and reliable AI-generated brochures on bariatric surgery are.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in September 2024 to generate patient brochures on six common bariatric procedures using ChatGPT and Google Gemini. Each brochure was evaluated for readability using the Flesch-Kincaid metrics, and "similarity" was assessed using Quillbot to estimate text overlap with existing literature (higher similarity indicating greater overlap). Reliability was measured using the modified DISCERN score, where higher scores reflect more trustworthy health information.
resultsChatGPT generally produced longer brochures with more sentences, while Gemini generated shorter text with slightly longer sentences. Despite these structural differences, both tools produced content with similar readability levels - approximately college-level - and comparable reliability scores. Gemini showed higher similarity with pre-existing text, while ChatGPT produced more original phrasing. Overall, both tools generated patient information of good reliability but with limited accessibility for individuals with lower literacy.
conclusionChatGPT and Google Gemini can produce reliable educational material on bariatric surgery, but the readability remains higher than ideal for the average patient. Human editing and simplification may be necessary to make AI-generated brochures more accessible and suitable for routine patient education.
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.