ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Cross-platform evaluation of LLM-generated educational texts on cardiac myxoma: quality, readability, and actionability using network analysis and latent profile analysis.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with cardiac myxoma require long-term follow-up, and the quality of patient education as well as the ability to recognize early symptoms may influence integrated postoperative cardiovascular and tumor-related management. Although large language models (LLMs) have been increasingly applied in medical education, cross-platform empirical evidence in this intersecting context remains limited. This study evaluated the performance and limitations of widely used LLMs in generating patient education texts for cardiac myxoma using a standardized, expert-curated educational question set. Methods: We constructed a standardized dataset of 60 expert-curated educational questions spanning the disease course of cardiac myxoma and used nine widely used LLMs to generate 540 patient education texts. Text quality, readability, and actionability were assessed using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials (PEMAT-P), Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP-36), the Global Quality Score (GQS), and seven readability formulas. In addition, a regularized Gaussian graphical model-based partial correlation network analysis and latent profile analysis were performed to identify relationships among evaluation metrics and cross-platform text phenotypes. Results: Texts generated across platforms showed significant heterogeneity in information quality, understandability, and objective readability, whereas clinical actionability was generally low. Word count showed the strongest positive correlation with the total EQIP-36 score and occupied a central position in the network. Reading-difficulty indices were consistently negatively correlated with PEMAT-P actionability. Latent profile analysis identified three text phenotypes: moderate-quality/low-readability, high-quality/high-actionability, and low-quality/easy-to-read. Ideally suited patient education texts accounted for only a very small proportion of all outputs. Conclusions: Within this expert-curated educational question set, the current application of LLMs in patient education for cardiac myxoma is primarily limited by reading burden and insufficient behavioral guidance. Although longer outputs were generally associated with higher informational quality scores, greater syntactic complexity was associated with lower actionability of the materials. In addition, latent profile analysis suggested that only a small subset of outputs approached a more favorable quality-actionability profile.
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.