Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42050032›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine2026

Generative AI vs web search for patient education: a comparative evaluation of OSA information quality.

Sholem Hack, Luca Giovanni Locatello, Tomer Boldes, Ameen Biadsee, Samanta Dall'Agnese, Angelo Cannavicci, Benyamin Meir Kaminer, Christopher Gouveia, Christopher R Roxbury, Ron J Karni and 4 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Dr. AI says you have sleep apnea: measuring the accuracy of patient-facing AI in sleep medicine.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Sholem HackCity St. George's University London School of Medicine, Program Delivered by University of Nicosia at the Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel. sholemhack1@gmail.com.ORCID 0009-0001-0651-6994
Luca Giovanni LocatelloDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Academic Hospital "Santa Maria Della Misericordia", Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale, Piazzale Santa Maria Della Misericordia 15, 33100, Udine, Italy.
Tomer BoldesDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel.
Ameen BiadseeDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel.
Samanta Dall'AgneseUniversity of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Angelo CannavicciDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Benyamin Meir KaminerDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Soroka University Medical Center, POB 151, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Christopher GouveiaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Kaiser Permanente, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
Christopher R RoxburyDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Integrated Surgical Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Ron J KarniDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center, 6431 Fannin Street, MSB 5.036, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Daor HayuFaculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
Habib G ZalzalDivision of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.
Omar G AhmedDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Masayoshi TakashimaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) frequently seek information online, yet the comparative quality of content delivered by web search engines versus generative AI systems is unclear. This study evaluated how different digital information sources perform in answering common patient questions about OSA.

methodsThirty high-volume, patient-facing OSA questions were identified using Google Trends. Each question was submitted verbatim to four general-purpose large language models (GPT-4, GPT-5, DeepSeek, Mistral), a medically specialized retrieval-augmented model (OpenEvidence), and Google Search. Seven otolaryngologists with clinical experience in OSA independently rated each response for accuracy, clarity, completeness, relevance, and usefulness using a five-point rubric. Composite and domain scores were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance with multiple-comparison correction; inter-rater reliability was assessed with two-way random-effects intraclass correlation coefficients.

resultsA total of 180 question-system pairs received 6295 domain-level ratings. OpenEvidence achieved the highest mean composite score (4.33), followed by a tightly clustered group of LLMs (means 4.00-4.04). Google Search scored significantly lower (3.15). Differences among systems were statistically significant across all domains (p < 0.001), with large effect sizes for comparisons of OpenEvidence and general LLMs versus Google. Composite average-rater reliability was good (ICC = 0.70).

conclusionFor common OSA questions, generative AI systems-particularly a retrieval-augmented medical model-produced higher-quality patient-facing information than standard web search. These findings support cautious consideration of GenAI tools to supplement patient education in OSA, while underscoring the need for ongoing evaluation across diseases, disciplines, and patient populations. CURRENT KNOWLEDGE/STUDY RATIONALE: Patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) frequently rely on online sources such as Google Search to understand symptoms, testing, and treatment, yet the quality of patient-facing information varies widely. As generative artificial intelligence tools are increasingly used for health questions, their comparative performance for OSA education has not been systematically evaluated using blinded expert review. STUDY IMPACT: In this blinded comparative study, generative AI systems, particularly a retrieval-augmented medical model, provided more accurate, clear, complete, and useful answers to common OSA questions than standard web search. These findings highlight that the choice of digital information source can meaningfully influence the quality of patient education in sleep medicine and support further evaluation of AI tools within clinical practice.

Indexed as

InternetPatient Education as TopicSearch EngineSleep Apnea, ObstructiveGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansLarge Language ModelsReproducibility of ResultsGenerative artificial intelligenceHealth information qualityLarge language modelsObstructive sleep apneaPatient educationWeb search engines

Identifiers

PMID42050032
PMCPMC13125571

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.