ArticleKidney medicine2026
Patient Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Kidney Transplant Information: Comparing ChatGPT With the National Kidney Foundation.
Article in Kidney medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy, readability, and health information quality of AI chatbot responses for patient education on intermittent fasting in chronic kidney disease: a prospective structured evaluation.Frontiers in nephrology · 2026Article
- Assessing knowledge and perception of artificial intelligence in solid organ transplantation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale & Objective: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) may help patients better understand the complexities of kidney transplantation. However, little is known about how individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) perceive AI-generated health information. This study assessed patient perceptions of AI-generated responses to common kidney transplant queries compared to those from a trusted health resource. Study Design: A cross-sectional online survey. Setting & Participants: A total of 216 adults with CKD, including kidney transplant recipients, residing in the United States participated in the study. Exposures: Participants compared kidney transplant-related query responses generated by ChatGPT (GPT-4o), a widely used generative AI tool, with those provided by the National Kidney Foundation (NKF). Outcomes: Participant perceptions across several domains: overall preference, perceived information quality, empathy, and learning outcomes. Analytical Approach: Participants reviewed paired responses from both ChatGPT and NKF, presented without source attribution. Results were analyzed using mixed-effect models. Results: Participants preferred ChatGPT-generated responses over NKF's in 81.3% of comparisons (P < 0.001). ChatGPT responses were rated significantly higher than NKF's in terms of information quality, empathy, and perceived learning outcomes (all Limitations: The web-based survey may not fully represent the diverse populations served by transplant centers. Limited prompts were used, which may not capture the full range of transplant scenarios. We were also unable to determine which specific features influenced participant preferences. Conclusions: Generative AI platforms like ChatGPT may present information in ways that resonate with patients, potentially enhancing their education and engagement. However, as these tools are still in the early stages of integration into everyday life, their use should be guided by careful human oversight.
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.