Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42801264›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

Three Large Language Models (LLMs), One Heart: A Comparative Evaluation of ChatGPT, Claude, and DeepSeek in Cardiac Imaging Patient Education.

Tooba Fatima Iram, Haroon Abdullah, Naazira Begum, Suraiya Begum, Shaheed Antlee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Tooba Fatima IramCardiac Critical Care, CARE Hospitals, Hyderabad, IND.
Haroon AbdullahCardiac Critical Care, CARE Hospitals, Hyderabad, IND.
Naazira BegumEmergency Medicine, Mythri Hospitals, Hyderabad, IND.
Suraiya BegumPathology, King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Medical City, Madinah, SAU.
Shaheed AntleeDermatology, King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Medical City, Madinah, SAU.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Clear, accurate, and accessible patient education is central to informed decision-making and high-quality cardiovascular care. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to generate health information, offering the potential to rapidly produce patient education materials. However, concerns remain regarding the readability, quality, clinical accuracy, and adherence to evidence-based recommendations of AI-generated content. This study compared the performance of ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA), Claude (Anthropic PBC, San Francisco, CA), and DeepSeek (DeepSeek Artificial Intelligence Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China) in generating patient education leaflets for three commonly performed cardiac imaging procedures. Methodology A cross-sectional study was conducted using standardized prompts to generate patient education leaflets for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), coronary computed tomography angiography (CTCA), and invasive coronary angiography (ICA) using ChatGPT, Claude, and DeepSeek. Nine leaflets were evaluated for readability using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Reading Ease, word count, and sentence count. Information quality was assessed using the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) instrument. Guideline adherence was assessed using investigator-developed checklists based on recommendations from relevant professional societies and patient education resources. Expert clinical assessment was independently performed by two reviewers using a structured 16-point scoring system. Comparisons among the three models were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results DeepSeek demonstrated the most favorable overall readability profile, with the highest Flesch Reading Ease score (70.73 ± 1.74) compared with ChatGPT (50.70 ± 7.88) and Claude (60.93 ± 5.51; H(2) = 7.20, p = 0.027). DeepSeek achieved the highest mean mDISCERN score (3.83 ± 0.29), followed by ChatGPT (3.50 ± 0.50) and Claude (2.67 ± 0.29), although the difference was not statistically significant (H(2) = 5.593, p = 0.061). ChatGPT demonstrated the highest mean guideline adherence (91.54 ± 3.39%), followed by DeepSeek (89.33 ± 3.41%) and Claude (88.07 ± 6.48%; H(2) = 0.707, p = 0.702). DeepSeek achieved the highest expert clinical assessment score (16.00 ± 0.00), followed by ChatGPT (15.67 ± 0.58) and Claude (14.33 ± 0.58), with no statistically significant difference (H(2) = 5.394, p = 0.067). A significant difference was also observed in total word count (H(2) = 7.20, p = 0.027). Conclusions All three LLMs generated high-quality patient education leaflets for common cardiac imaging procedures, with each model demonstrating distinct strengths across different evaluation domains. DeepSeek showed the most favorable readability and achieved the highest information quality and expert clinical assessment scores, whereas ChatGPT demonstrated the greatest guideline adherence. However, all three models produced content above recommended patient health-literacy standards. LLMs may therefore serve as valuable clinician-assisted tools for developing cardiac imaging education materials, but expert review and readability optimization remain essential before clinical implementation.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence in radiologycardiac imaging modalitiescardiac imaging-mrihealth information literacylarge language models (llms)patient education material

Identifiers

PMID42801264
PMCPMC13615880

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.