ArticleBMC psychiatry2026
Quality and readability of AI-generated information on bipolar disorder: a cross-sectional content analysis.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBipolar disorder is a clinically sensitive and diagnostically complex condition in which unclear or incomplete psychoeducational information may contribute to misunderstanding of symptoms, delayed help-seeking, and unsafe interpretation of treatment options. Large language models are increasingly used as on-demand sources of mental health information, yet comparative evidence on the quality and readability of AI-generated information about bipolar disorder remains limited.
methodsThis cross-sectional content analysis evaluated 180 responses generated by ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek to 20 bipolar disorder-related questions derived from Google Trends. Each question was asked in three independent new sessions for each model. Information quality was assessed using the 20-item EQIP instrument, and readability was evaluated using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease, and word count. To address the non-independence of repeated responses nested within prompts, a linear mixed-effects model was used with AI model and question category as fixed effects and question ID as a random intercept.
resultsIn the mixed-effects analysis, AI model significantly predicted EQIP scores. Compared with ChatGPT, Gemini and DeepSeek generated higher EQIP scores, with DeepSeek showing the largest estimated difference. Question category also contributed to information quality, although category-level pairwise comparisons did not remain significant after Bonferroni adjustment. Higher EQIP scores were moderately associated with longer responses and more favorable readability indices. Inter-rater analyses showed moderate absolute agreement for total EQIP scores and variable item-level agreement.
conclusionsWithin the specific models, access conditions, prompts, date, and settings tested in this study, AI-generated bipolar disorder information differed across models in EQIP-rated quality and readability. These findings should be interpreted as content-quality findings rather than evidence of clinical accuracy, safety, or patient benefit. AI-generated psychoeducation should therefore be treated as a supplementary information source requiring expert review rather than a replacement for clinician-guided 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.