Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 26, 2026.

Large language models in patient education: a scoping review of applications in medicine

Serhat Aydin, Mert Karabacak, Victoria Vlachos and 1 more

Frontiers in Medicine · 2024 · Review · CC BY

doi:10.3389/fmed.2024.1477898

Abstract

Introduction. Large Language Models (LLMs) are sophisticated algorithms that analyze and generate vast amounts of textual data, mimicking human communication. Notable LLMs include GPT-4o by Open AI, Claude 3.5 Sonnet by Anthropic, and Gemini by Google. This scoping review aims to synthesize the current applications and potential uses of LLMs in patient education and engagement.

Materials and methods. Following the PRISMA-ScR checklist and methodologies by Arksey, O’Malley, and Levac, we conducted a scoping review. We searched PubMed in June 2024, using keywords and MeSH terms related to LLMs and patient education. Two authors conducted the initial screening, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. We employed thematic analysis to address our primary research question.

Results. The review identified 201 studies, predominantly from the United States (58.2%). Six themes emerged: generating patient education materials, interpreting medical information, providing lifestyle recommendations, supporting customized medication use, offering perioperative care instructions, and optimizing doctor-patient interaction. LLMs were found to provide accurate responses to patient queries, enhance existing educational materials, and translate medical information into patient-friendly language. However, challenges such as readability, accuracy, and potential biases were noted.

Discussion. LLMs demonstrate significant potential in patient education and engagement by creating accessible educational materials, interpreting complex medical information, and enhancing communication between patients and healthcare providers. Nonetheless, issues related to the accuracy and readability of LLM-generated content, as well as ethical concerns, require further research and development. Future studies should focus on improving LLMs and ensuring content reliability while addressing ethical considerations.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 26, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

Large Language Models (LLMs) are sophisticated algorithms that analyze and generate extensive textual data. These models leverage vast corpora of unlabeled text and incorporate reinforcement learning from human feedback to discern syntactical patterns and contextual nuances within languages. Consequently, LLMs can produce responses that closely mimic human communication when presented with diverse, open-ended queries. Several notable LLMs have emerged recently, including GPT-4o by Open AI, Claude 3.5 Sonnet by Anthropic, and Gemini by Google.

LLMs have demonstrated significant potential in medicine, with transformative applications across various domains, including clinical settings. These AI-powered systems can streamline clinical workflows, help with clinical decision-making, and ultimately improve patient outcomes. Recent studies highlight the utility of LLMs in clinical decision support, providing valuable insights that enable healthcare teams to make more informed treatment decisions. LLMs also show promise as educational tools by enhancing the quality and accessibility of materials. However, from a patient’s perspective, they present both opportunities and risks. The varying levels of medical knowledge among patients may impede their ability to critically assess the information provided by LLMs, unlike clinicians who are trained to do so.

As of July 2024, there was limited synthesis of knowledge regarding the evidence base, applications, and evaluation methods of LLMs in patient education and engagement. This scoping review aims to address this gap by mapping the available literature on potential applications of LLMs in patient education and identifying future research directions. Our primary research question is: “What are the current and potential uses of LLMs in patient education and engagement as described in the literature?” This review seeks to enhance future discussions on using LLMs for patient care, including education, engagement, workload reduction, patient-centered health customization, and communication.

Materials and methods

This study employed a scoping review methodology, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. The review process was based on the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley, with further refinements as proposed by Levac et al..

Literature search

A literature search was conducted in June 2024 using the PubMed database. The search strategy, detailed in Supplementary Methods S1, combined relevant keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms related to LLMs and patient education.

Study selection

Citation management was facilitated by Covidence software (Veritas Health Innovation). The inclusion criteria encompassed studies addressing the use, accuracy, relevance, or effectiveness of LLMs in patient education, patient engagement, answering patient-specific questions, or generating patient education materials. Studies were excluded if they did not primarily focus on LLMs for patient education, engagement, or answering patient questions; did not assess LLMs in healthcare settings or had only indirect relations to patients; or focused solely on technical aspects or architecture of LLMs without considering their application in patient education or engagement. A detailed description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria is provided in Supplementary Methods S2.

The selection process involved two stages. In the initial screening, two authors (SA and VV) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of retrieved articles. Studies passing the initial screening were then read in full by both authors. Studies deemed eligible by both reviewers were included in the analysis. In cases of disagreement, a third author (MK) was consulted to resolve discrepancies.

Thematic analysis

We employed thematic analysis, following the methodology proposed by Braun and Clarke, to address our primary research question. The process began with an author (SA) reading and coding 25 randomly selected articles, focusing on content related to the potential uses of LLMs in patient education and engagement. Subsequently, two authors (SA and MK) examined the remaining manuscripts, seeking additional themes or data that could either reinforce or challenge the established themes. This iterative process facilitated further refinement of the themes through group discussions centered on patient education and engagement.

Literature search

The initial search strategy yielded 661 papers. After removing one duplicate, 660 papers remained for screening. Based on title and abstract screening, 365 papers (55.3%) were excluded. Full-text review was conducted for 295 papers (44.7% of the initial pool), resulting in 201 papers (30% of the initial pool) meeting the study inclusion criteria (Supplementary Figure S1). Supplementary Data S1 presents all of the included papers.

Descriptive analysis

The geographical distribution of the studies revealed a predominance from the United States, accounting for 58.2% (117/201) of the articles. Turkey and China followed, each contributing 6.4% (13/201) of the articles (Figure 1A). The studies spanned 35 medical specialties, with general medicine representing the largest proportion at 12.9% (26/201), closely followed by orthopedic surgery at 12.4% (25/201), and otolaryngology at 9.4% (19/201) (Figure 1B).

Thematic analysis

Our analysis identified six main themes with associated subthemes regarding the use of LLMs in patient education and engagement:

Generating Patient Education Materials

Answering Patient Questions

Enhancing Existing Patient Education Materials

Translation of Patient Education Materials

Interpreting Medical Information from a Patient Perspective

Providing Lifestyle Recommendations and Improving Health Literacy

Customized Medication Use and Self-Decision

Providing Pre-, Peri-, and Post-Operative Care Instructions

Optimizing Doctor-Patient Interaction

Facilitating Understanding of Consent Forms

Enhancing Communication Establishment

Table 1 presents these six themes as represented across the analyzed articles, along with illustrative quotes. Supplementary Data S2 indicates the theme to which each paper belongs.

The theme “Generating Patient Education Materials” was predominant, encompassing 80.5% (162/201) of the articles across its three subthemes. Within this theme, “Answering Patient Questions” was the most prevalent subtheme, representing 71.6% (144/201) of all articles. The remaining themes were distributed as follows: “Interpreting Medical Information from a Patient Perspective” and “Providing Lifestyle Recommendations and Improving Health Literacy” each accounted for 4.5% (9/201) of the articles. “Providing Pre-, Peri-, and Post-Operative Care Instructions” was represented in 6.9% (14/201) of the articles, while “Optimizing Doctor-Patient Interaction” appeared in 2.5% (5/201) of the articles. The least represented theme was “Customized Medication Use and Self-Decision,” accounting for 1% (2/201) of the articles.

Theme 1: generating patient education materials

The generation of patient education materials emerged as a prominent theme, with three key subthemes: answering patient questions, enhancing existing materials, and translating medical content. Answering patient questions was the most significant subtheme, representing 71.6% of the articles. In these studies, LLMs created educational content by responding to common questions, direct patient inquiries, and expert-formulated queries, demonstrating their potential to address diverse patient information needs.

Most studies found LLMs provided accurate responses to patient queries. Almagazzachi et al. reported 92.5% accuracy for ChatGPT’s answers to hypertension questions. However, accuracy varied by specialty. In a study on pediatric in-toeing, Amaral et al. found 46% of responses were excellent, and 44% were satisfactory with minimal clarification needed. These findings suggest LLMs’ potential in patient education, while highlighting performance differences across medical fields.

The readability of LLM-generated content varied considerably across studies. ChatGPT’s responses often required a higher reading level, potentially limiting accessibility for some patients. Campbell et al. demonstrated that ChatGPT’s unprompted answers on obstructive sleep apnea had a mean Flesch–Kincaid grade level of 14.15, which decreased to 12.45 when prompted. This indicates that even with specific instructions, the content remained at a college reading level. In contrast, other LLMs showed better readability in some cases. Chervonski et al. reported that Google BARD produced more accessible content, with responses on vascular surgery diseases achieving a mean Flesch Reading Ease score of 58.9, indicating improved readability. When compared to traditional search engines, LLMs revealed a trade-off between comprehensiveness and readability. Cohen et al. found that while ChatGPT provided more detailed and higher-quality responses to cataract surgery FAQs compared to Google, these responses were at a higher reading level. These findings suggest that while LLMs may offer more comprehensive information, they do not always improve accessibility for the average patient.

LLMs show promise in transforming existing materials into more readable, patient-centered formats. Numerous studies demonstrate their ability to enhance readability across various medical education materials. Fanning et al. found comparable performance between ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 in improving plastic surgery material readability. Moons et al. reported Google BARD surpassed GPT in readability improvement but tended to omit information. Some studies, however, found no improvement or decreased readability, indicating variability in LLM effectiveness. Interestingly, Sudharshan et al. noted LLMs were more accurate in creating readable Spanish materials, suggesting potential for addressing language-specific challenges.

Research on LLMs for translating patient education materials remains limited. However, a significant study by Grimm et al. showed ChatGPT-4’s ability to produce accurate, understandable, and actionable translations of otorhinolaryngology content in English, Spanish, and Mandarin. This finding suggests LLMs’ potential in overcoming language barriers in patient education.

Theme 2: interpreting medical information from a patient perspective

Nine studies investigated LLMs’ capacity to interpret complex medical information, evaluating their feasibility, accuracy, readability, and effectiveness in translating medical jargon. He et al. found ChatGPT-4 outperformed other LLMs and human responses from Q&A websites in accuracy, helpfulness, relevance, and safety when answering laboratory test result questions. However, Meyer et al. reported that ChatGPT, Gemini, and Le Chat were less accurate and more generalized than certified physicians in interpreting laboratory results, highlighting the variability in LLM performance across different contexts.

LLMs demonstrate potential in improving radiological information interpretation and communication. Kuckelman et al. found ChatGPT-4 produced generally accurate summaries of musculoskeletal radiology reports, noting some variability in human interpretation. Lyu et al. showed ChatGPT-4 enhanced translated radiology report quality and accessibility, despite occasional oversimplifications. Sarangi et al. reported ChatGPT-3.5 effectively simplified radiological reports while maintaining essential diagnostic information, though performance varied across conditions and imaging modalities. Several other studies support these findings, suggesting LLMs’ promising role in radiology communication.

Zaretsky et al. evaluated ChatGPT-4’s ability to convert discharge summaries into patient-friendly formats. The transformed summaries showed significant improvements in readability and understandability. However, the study raised concerns about accuracy and completeness, noting instances of omissions and hallucinations.

Theme 3: providing lifestyle recommendations and improving health literacy

Nine studies explored LLMs’ potential in offering lifestyle recommendations and enhancing health literacy. Alanezi et al. found ChatGPT effective in promoting health behavior changes among cancer patients, boosting health literacy and self-management. Bragazzi et al. showed ChatGPT’s capability to debunk sleep-related myths and provide accessible advice. In a follow-up study, they found Google BARD slightly outperformed ChatGPT-4 in identifying false statements and offering practical sleep-related advice. These findings suggest LLMs’ promising role in health education and lifestyle guidance.

Gray et al. demonstrated ChatGPT’s ability to generate realistic prenatal counseling dialogues. Minutolo et al. proposed a conversational agent to enhance health literacy by making Patient Information Leaflets queryable. Mondal et al. found ChatGPT provided reasonably accurate responses to lifestyle-related disease queries. Ponzo et al. reported ChatGPT offered general dietary guidance for NCDs but struggled with complex, multi-condition cases. Willms et al. explored ChatGPT’s potential in creating physical activity app content, emphasizing the need for expert review. Zaleski et al. found AI-generated exercise recommendations generally accurate but lacking comprehensiveness and at a college reading level. These studies highlight LLMs’ diverse applications in health education while noting their limitations.

Theme 4: customized medication use and self-decision

Two studies explored LLMs’ potential in medication guidance and self-decision support. Altamimi et al. found ChatGPT provided accurate advice on acute venomous snakebite management, while emphasizing the importance of professional care. In contrast, McMahon et al. observed ChatGPT accurately described clinician-managed abortion as safe but incorrectly portrayed self-managed abortion as dangerous, highlighting potential misinformation risks. These findings underscore both the promise and pitfalls of using LLMs for sensitive medical information.

Theme 5: providing pre-/peri-/post-operative care instructions

Studies investigated LLMs’ use in surgical patient education. Aliyeva et al. found ChatGPT-4 excelled in providing postoperative care instructions for cochlear implant patients, especially in remote settings. LLMs showed proficiency in offering postoperative guidance across various surgical specialties. Dhar et al. noted ChatGPT’s accuracy in answering tonsillectomy questions, with some pain management inaccuracies. Patil et al. reported ChatGPT provided quality preoperative information for ophthalmic surgeries, though occasionally overlooking adverse events. Meyer et al. found ChatGPT reliable for postoperative gynecological surgery instructions. Breneman et al. and Kienzle et al. evaluated ChatGPT for preoperative counseling in Mohs surgery and knee arthroplasty, finding it potentially useful but cautioning about non-existing references.

Theme 6: optimizing doctor-patient interaction

This theme explores LLMs’ potential to enhance doctor-patient communication, particularly in simplifying consent forms and improving general medical communication. Ali et al. found ChatGPT-4 successfully simplified surgical consent forms to an 8th-grade reading level while maintaining accuracy. Shiraishi et al. reported that revised ChatGPT-prepared informed consent documents for blepharoplasty were more desirable than originals.

LLMs also showed promise in broader doctor-patient communication. An et al. introduced an LLM-based education model that improved patients’ understanding of their conditions and treatments. Roberts et al. demonstrated LLMs could generate comprehensible outpatient clinic letters for cosmetic surgery, potentially saving clinicians’ time. Xue et al. found ChatGPT performed well in logical reasoning and medical knowledge education during remote orthopedic consultations. These studies highlight LLMs’ potential to enhance various aspects of medical communication.

Discussion

This scoping review synthesizes current applications and potential uses of LLMs in patient education and engagement, offering insights into their transformative potential and integration challenges in healthcare settings. LLMs demonstrate significant promise in creating patient education materials, with studies reporting that health-related questions were accurately answered over 90% of the time by systems like ChatGPT, covering a broad range of topics from hypertension to pediatric conditions. The depth of these responses potentially offers substantial value to patients seeking detailed understanding of their ailments. However, readability remains a notable concern, potentially limiting accessibility for some patient populations.

LLMs have demonstrated competence in interpreting complex medical information from laboratory reports, radiology results, and discharge summaries. ChatGPT-4, for instance, generated informative summaries of radiology reports, making them more accessible to non-medical professionals. However, concerns about the quality and comprehensiveness of LLM-generated information persist. Issues such as hallucinations, omissions, or plausible but incorrect information have been noted. Zaretsky et al. observed that while ChatGPT-4 could transform discharge summaries into more patient-friendly formats, occasional inaccuracies, and omissions could potentially mislead patients. These findings underscore the necessity for professional oversight in deploying LLMs in healthcare settings to ensure the reliability and accuracy of AI-generated content.

LLMs show promise as lifestyle recommendations and health literacy tools, effectively encouraging healthy behaviors and dispelling health myths. Alanezi et al. found that ChatGPT provided significant support in developing health literacy among cancer patients, motivating self-management through emotional, informational, and motivational assistance. Bragazzi and Garbarino demonstrated ChatGPT’s effectiveness in debunking sleep-related misconceptions, accurately distinguishing between false and genuine health information. However, personalization and accuracy remain challenging. While AI can offer useful preliminary advice, it requires further development to provide relevant, situation-specific suggestions tailored to individual patients. This customization is crucial for ensuring that patients can trust and adhere to the recommendations provided.

LLMs play a significant role in providing information on self-medication and personalized drug utilization, offering detailed insights on drug interactions, correct usage, and potential side effects. Altamimi et al. found ChatGPT’s information helpful and accurate in guiding acute venomous snakebite management, though it appropriately emphasized the need for professional medical care. LLMs also show potential in patient triage, quickly analyzing symptoms and medical history to prioritize cases based on severity. However, the quality of LLM-provided information varies considerably. McMahon et al. reported that ChatGPT gave inaccurate and misleading information about self-managed medication abortion, incorrectly portraying it as dangerous despite evidence of its safety and efficacy. This inconsistency highlights the risks of relying on AI without professional oversight and underscores the need for LLMs to provide accurate, up-to-date, and context-sensitive information to support safe self-medication practices.

Implications and future research

The integration of LLMs into patient education and engagement shows significant potential for improving health literacy and healthcare delivery efficiency. However, this review highlights the need for continued improvement in the accuracy and personalization of AI-generated content. Future research should focus on developing more accurate LLM algorithms to enhance reliability as medical information sources, exploring multimodal LLMs, and establishing robust validation frameworks for their ethical use. Ensuring AI-based information aligns with the latest medical guidelines and is tailored for diverse patient populations is crucial. Conducting longitudinal studies to assess the long-term effects of LLMs on patient outcomes and satisfaction will provide valuable insights. Additionally, addressing ethical concerns, including data privacy and potential biases in LLM-generated content, is essential. These research directions are crucial for the responsible and effective integration of LLMs in healthcare settings. Finally, LLMs may carry biases from their training data, potentially propagating misinformation or reinforcing healthcare disparities. Future research should address these limitations by ensuring LLM tools are accurate, reliable, and equitable across diverse patient populations, while also exploring their long-term effects and ethical implications.

Limitations

This scoping review has several limitations. The quality of included studies varied, with some using small sample sizes or subjective assessments, potentially limiting result generalizability. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries, raising questions about their relevance to low-and middle-income settings with different healthcare needs and infrastructure. The evaluation of various LLMs and versions complicates drawing overarching conclusions. Inconsistent evaluation metrics across studies hindered result comparison and synthesis.

Conclusion

LLMs demonstrate transformative potential in patient education and engagement across various levels of medical care. Their ability to provide accurate, detailed, and timely information can significantly enhance patients’ understanding of their healthcare and promote active involvement. However, current limitations in accuracy and readability highlight the need for further refinement to ensure reliable integration with healthcare systems. Extensive research and development of AI tools are necessary to fully harness their potential for improving patient outcomes and healthcare efficiency. A critical priority for medical applications is to ensure the ethical and responsible use of these tools, necessitating robust supervision and validation processes.

References 212

  1. 1.

    Willms A Liu S. Exploring the feasibility of using Chatgpt to create just-in-time adaptive physical activity mHealth intervention content: case study. JMIR Med Educ. (2024 ) 10:e51426

    Not in our library10.2196/51426

  2. 2.
    Assessing the research landscape and clinical utility of large language models: a scoping review · 2024
    No notice
  3. 3.

    Meng X Yan X Zhang K Liu D Cui X Yang Y. The application of large language models in medicine: a scoping review. iScience. (2024 ) 27:109713. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.isci.2024.109713

  4. 4.

    Minssen T Vayena E Cohen IG. The challenges for regulating medical use of Chatgpt and other large language models. JAMA. (2023 ) 330:315–6. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.2023.9651

  5. 5.

    Open AI. (2024 ). Available at: https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o (accessed 2024).

    Not in our library

  6. 6.

    Anthropic. (2024 ). Available at: https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-3-5-sonnet (accessed 2024).

    Not in our library

  7. 7.

    Google. (2023 ). Available at: https://gemini.google.com/ (accessed 2024).

    Not in our library

  8. 8.

    Peng W Feng Y Yao C Zhang S Zhuo H Qiu T. Evaluating Ai in medicine: a comparative analysis of expert and Chatgpt responses to colorectal Cancer questions. Sci Rep. (2024 ) 14:2840. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-024-52853-3

  9. 9.
    ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns · 2023
    No notice
  10. 10.

    Preiksaitis C Ashenburg N Bunney G Chu A Kabeer R Riley F. The Role of large language models in transforming emergency medicine: scoping review. JMIR Med Inform. (2024 ) 12:e53787:e53787. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2196/53787

  11. 11.

    Tricco AC Lillie E Zarin W O'Brien KK Colquhoun H Levac D. Prisma extension for scoping reviews (Prisma-Scr): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. (2018 ) 169:467–73. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.7326/m18-0850

  12. 12.

    Arksey H O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. (2005 ) 8:19–32

    Not in our library10.1080/1364557032000119616

  13. 13.
    Scoping studies: advancing the methodology · 2010
    No notice
  14. 14.

    Braun V Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. (2006 ) 3:77–101

    Not in our library10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

  15. 15.

    Al-Sharif EM Penteado RC Dib El Jalbout N Topilow NJ Shoji MK Kikkawa DO. Evaluating the accuracy of Chatgpt and Google Bard in fielding oculoplastic patient queries: a comparative study on artificial versus human intelligence. Ophthalmic. Plast Reconstr Surg. (2024 ) 40:303–11. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1097/iop.0000000000002567

  16. 16.

    Alapati R Campbell D Molin N Creighton E Wei Z Boon M. Evaluating insomnia queries from an artificial intelligence Chatbot for patient education. J Clin Sleep Med. (2024 ) 20:583–94. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.5664/jcsm.10948

  17. 17.

    Alessandri-Bonetti M Liu HY Palmesano M Nguyen VT Egro FM. Online patient education in body contouring: a comparison between Google and Chatgpt. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. (2023 ) 87:390–402. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bjps.2023.10.091

  18. 18.

    Almagazzachi A Mustafa A Eighaei Sedeh A Vazquez Gonzalez AE Polianovskaia A Abood M. Generative artificial intelligence in patient education: Chatgpt takes on hypertension questions. Cureus. (2024 ) 16:e53441. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.7759/cureus.53441

  19. 19.

    Amaral JZ Schultz RJ Martin BM Taylor T Touban B McGraw-Heinrich J. Evaluating chat generative pre-trained transformer responses to common pediatric in-toeing questions. J Pediatr Orthop. (2024 ) 44:e592–7

    Not in our library10.1097/bpo.0000000000002695

  20. 20.

    Amin KS Mayes LC Khosla P Doshi RH. Assessing the efficacy of large language models in health literacy: a comprehensive cross-sectional study. Yale J Biol Med. (2024 ) 97:17–27. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.59249/ztoz1966

  21. 21.

    Anastasio AT FBT M Karavan MP Jr Adams SB Jr. Evaluating the quality and usability of artificial intelligence-generated responses to common patient questions in foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Orthop. (2023 ) 8:24730114231209919. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1177/24730114231209919

  22. 22.

    Atarere J Naqvi H Haas C Adewunmi C Bandaru S Allamneni R. Applicability of online chat-based artificial intelligence models to colorectal Cancer screening. Dig Dis Sci. (2024 ) 69:791–7. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1007/s10620-024-08274-3

  23. 23.

    Athavale A Baier J Ross E Fukaya E. The potential of Chatbots in chronic venous disease patient management. JVS Vasc Insights. (2023 ) 1:1. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jvsvi.2023.100019

  24. 24.

    Ayers JW Poliak A Dredze M Leas EC Zhu Z Kelley JB. Comparing physician and artificial intelligence Chatbot responses to patient questions posted to a public social media forum. JAMA Intern Med. (2023 ) 183:589–96. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.1838

  25. 25.

    Ayoub NF Lee YJ Grimm D Balakrishnan K. Comparison between Chatgpt and Google search as sources of postoperative patient instructions. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2023 ) 149:556–8. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1001/jamaoto.2023.0704

  26. 26.

    Ayoub NF Lee YJ Grimm D Divi V. Head-to-head comparison of Chatgpt versus Google search for medical knowledge acquisition. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2024 ) 170:1484–91. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1002/ohn.465

  27. 27.

    Balel Y. Can Chatgpt be used in Oral and maxillofacial surgery? J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. (2023 ) 124:101471

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jormas.2023.101471

  28. 28.

    Bellinger JR De La Chapa JS Kwak MW Ramos GA Morrison D Kesser BW. Bppv information on Google versus ai (Chatgpt). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2024 ) 170:1504–11. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1002/ohn.506

  29. 29.
    Comparison of Ophthalmologist and Large Language Model Chatbot Responses to Online Patient Eye Care Questions · 2023
    No notice
  30. 30.

    Brozović J Mikulić B Tomas M Juzbašić M Blašković M. Assessing the performance of Bing chat artificial intelligence: dental exams, clinical guidelines, and Patients' frequent questions. J Dent. (2024 ) 144:104927. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104927

  31. 31.

    Caglar U Yildiz O Meric A Ayranci A Gelmis M Sarilar O. Evaluating the performance of Chatgpt in answering questions related to pediatric urology. J Pediatr Urol. (2024 ) 20:26.e1–5. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jpurol.2023.08.003

  32. 32.

    Campbell DJ Estephan LE Mastrolonardo EV Amin DR Huntley CT Boon MS. Evaluating Chatgpt responses on obstructive sleep apnea for patient education. J Clin Sleep Med. (2023 ) 19:1989–95. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.5664/jcsm.10728

  33. 33.

    Campbell DJ Estephan LE Sina EM Mastrolonardo EV Alapati R Amin DR. Evaluating Chatgpt responses on thyroid nodules for patient education. Thyroid. (2024 ) 34:371–7. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1089/thy.2023.0491

  34. 34.

    Cappellani F Card KR Shields CL Pulido JS Haller JA. Reliability and accuracy of artificial intelligence Chatgpt in providing information on ophthalmic diseases and management to patients. Eye (Lond). (2024 ) 38:1368–73. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1038/s41433-023-02906-0

  35. 35.

    Carnino JM Pellegrini WR Willis M Cohen MB Paz-Lansberg M Davis EM. Assessing Chatgpt's responses to otolaryngology patient questions. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. (2024 ) 133:658–64. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1177/00034894241249621

  36. 36.

    Chen D Parsa R Hope A Hannon B Mak E Eng L. Physician and artificial intelligence Chatbot responses to Cancer questions from social media. JAMA Oncol. (2024 ) 10:956–60

    Not in our library10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836

  37. 37.

    Chen X Zhang W Zhao Z Xu P Zheng Y Shi D. Icga-Gpt: report generation and question answering for Indocyanine green angiography images. Br J Ophthalmol. (2024 ) 108:1450–6. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1136/bjo-2023-324446

  38. 38.

    Cheong KX Zhang C Tan TE Fenner BJ Wong WM Teo KY. Comparing generative and retrieval-based Chatbots in answering patient questions regarding age-related macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy. Br J Ophthalmol. (2024 ) 108:1443–9. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1136/bjo-2023-324533

  39. 39.

    Cheong RCT Unadkat S McNeillis V Williamson A Joseph J Randhawa P. Artificial intelligence Chatbots as sources of patient education material for obstructive sleep Apnoea: Chatgpt versus Google Bard. Eur Arch Otorrinolaringol. (2024 ) 281:985–93. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1007/s00405-023-08319-9

  40. 40.

    Chervonski E Harish KB Rockman CB Sadek M Teter KA Jacobowitz GR. Generative artificial intelligence Chatbots may provide appropriate informational responses to common vascular surgery questions by patients. Vascular. (2024 ):17085381241240550. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1177/17085381241240550

  41. 41.

    Christy M Morris MT Goldfarb CA Dy CJ. Appropriateness and reliability of an online artificial intelligence Platform's responses to common questions regarding distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Am. (2024 ) 49:91–8. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.10.019

  42. 42.

    Cohen SA Brant A Fisher AC Pershing S Do D Pan C. Dr. Google vs. Dr. Chatgpt: exploring the use of artificial intelligence in ophthalmology by comparing the accuracy, safety, and readability of responses to frequently asked patient questions regarding cataracts and cataract surgery. Semin Ophthalmol. (2024 ) 39:472–9

    Not in our library10.1080/08820538.2024.2326058

  43. 43.

    Connors C Gupta K Khusid JA Khargi R Yaghoubian AJ Levy M. Evaluation of the current status of artificial intelligence for Endourology patient education: a blind comparison of Chatgpt and Google Bard against traditional information resources. J Endourol. (2024 ) 38:843–51. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1089/end.2023.0696

  44. 44.

    Cornelison BR Erstad BL Edwards C. Accuracy of a Chatbot in answering questions that patients should ask before taking a new medication. J Am Pharm Assoc. (2003 ) 64:102110. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.japh.2024.102110

  45. 45.

    Croen BJ Abdullah MS Berns E Rapaport S Hahn AK Barrett CC. Evaluation of patient education materials from large-language artificial intelligence models on carpal tunnel release. Hand. (2024 ) N Y:15589447241247332. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1177/15589447241247332

  46. 46.

    Crook BS Park CN Hurley ET Richard MJ Pidgeon TS. Evaluation of online artificial intelligence-generated information on common hand procedures. J Hand Surg Am. (2023 ) 48:1122–7. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.08.003

  47. 47.

    Cung M Sosa B Yang HS McDonald MM Matthews BG Vlug AG. The performance of artificial intelligence Chatbot large language models to address skeletal biology and bone health queries. J Bone Miner Res. (2024 ) 39:106–15. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1093/jbmr/zjad007

  48. 48.

    Davis R Eppler M Ayo-Ajibola O Loh-Doyle JC Nabhani J Samplaski M. Evaluating the effectiveness of artificial intelligence-powered large language models application in disseminating appropriate and readable health information in urology. J Urol. (2023 ) 210:688–94. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1097/ju.0000000000003615

  49. 49.

    Dimitriadis F Alkagiet S Tsigkriki L Kleitsioti P Sidiropoulos G Efstratiou D. Chatgpt and patients with heart failure. Angiology. (2024 ):33197241238403. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1177/00033197241238403

  50. 50.

    Doğan L Özçakmakcı GB Yılmaz ĬE. The performance of Chatbots and the Aapos website as a tool for amblyopia education. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. (2024 ) 61:325–31. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.3928/01913913-20240409-01

  51. 51.

    Dubin JA Bains SS DeRogatis MJ Moore MC Hameed D Mont MA. Appropriateness of frequently asked patient questions following Total hip arthroplasty from Chatgpt compared to arthroplasty-trained nurses. J Arthroplast. (2024 ) 39:S306–11. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.arth.2024.04.020

  52. 52.

    Durairaj KK Baker O Bertossi D Dayan S Karimi K Kim R. Artificial intelligence versus expert plastic surgeon: comparative study shows Chatgpt "wins" Rhinoplasty consultations: should we be worried? Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med. (2023 ) 26:270–5. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1089/fpsam.2023.0224

  53. 53.

    Fahy S Niemann M Böhm P Winkler T Oehme S. Assessment of the quality and readability of information provided by Chatgpt in relation to the use of platelet-rich plasma therapy for osteoarthritis. J Pers Med. (2024 ) 14:495

    Not in our library10.3390/jpm14050495

  54. 54.

    Fahy S Oehme S Milinkovic D Jung T Bartek B. Assessment of quality and readability of information provided by Chatgpt in relation to anterior cruciate ligament injury. J Pers Med. (2024 ) 14:104. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.3390/jpm14010104

  55. 55.

    Gabriel J Shafik L Alanbuki A Larner T. The utility of the Chatgpt artificial intelligence tool for patient education and enquiry in robotic radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol. (2023 ) 55:2717–32. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1007/s11255-023-03729-4

  56. 56.

    Gajjar AA Kumar RP Paliwoda ED Kuo CC Adida S Legarreta AD. Usefulness and accuracy of artificial intelligence Chatbot responses to patient questions for neurosurgical procedures. Neurosurgery. (2024 ) 95:171–178. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1227/neu.0000000000002856

  57. 57.

    Garcia Valencia OA Thongprayoon C Miao J Suppadungsuk S Krisanapan P Craici IM. Empowering inclusivity: improving readability of living kidney donation information with Chatgpt. Front Digit Health. (2024 ) 6:1366967. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.3389/fdgth.2024.1366967

  58. 58.

    Ghanem D Shu H Bergstein V Marrache M Love A Hughes A. Educating patients on osteoporosis and bone health: can "Chatgpt" provide high-quality content? Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. (2024 ) 34:2757–65. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1007/s00590-024-03990-y

  59. 59.

    Ghanem YK Rouhi AD Al-Houssan A Saleh Z Moccia MC Joshi H. Dr. Google to Dr. Chatgpt: assessing the content and quality of artificial intelligence-generated medical information on appendicitis. Surg Endosc. (2024 ) 38:2887–93

    Not in our library10.1007/s00464-024-10739-5

  60. 60.

    Gordon EB Towbin AJ Wingrove P Shafique U Haas B Kitts AB. Enhancing patient communication with chat-Gpt in radiology: evaluating the efficacy and readability of answers to common imaging-related questions. J Am Coll Radiol. (2024 ) 21:353–9. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jacr.2023.09.011

  61. 61.

    Gül Ş Erdemir İ Hanci V Aydoğmuş E Erkoç YS. How artificial intelligence can provide information about subdural hematoma: assessment of readability, reliability, and quality of Chatgpt, Bard, and perplexity responses. Medicine (Baltimore). (2024 ) 103:e38009. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1097/md.0000000000038009

  62. 62.

    Günay S Yiğit Y Halhalli HC Tulgar S Alkahlout BH Azad AM. Ai in patient education: assessing the impact of Chatgpt-4 on conveying comprehensive information about chest pain. Am J Emerg Med. (2024 ) 77:220–1. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ajem.2023.12.047

  63. 63.

    Haidar O Jaques A McCaughran PW Metcalfe MJ. Ai-generated information for vascular patients: assessing the standard of procedure-specific information provided by the Chatgpt Ai-language model. Cureus. (2023 ) 15:e49764. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.7759/cureus.49764

  64. 64.

    Halawani A Mitchell A Saffarzadeh M Wong V Chew BH Forbes CM. Accuracy and readability of kidney stone patient information materials generated by a large language model compared to official urologic organizations. Urology. (2024 ) 186:107–13. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.urology.2023.11.042

  65. 65.

    Hernandez CA Vazquez Gonzalez AE Polianovskaia A Amoro Sanchez R Muyolema Arce V Mustafa A. The future of patient education: Ai-driven guide for type 2 diabetes. Cureus. (2023 ) 15:e48919. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.7759/cureus.48919

  66. 66.

    Hershenhouse JS Mokhtar D Eppler MB Rodler S Storino Ramacciotti L Ganjavi C. Accuracy, readability, and understandability of large language models for prostate Cancer information to the public. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. (2024 ). doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1038/s41391-024-00826-y

  67. 67.

    Hillmann HAK Angelini E Karfoul N Feickert S Mueller-Leisse J Duncker D. Accuracy and comprehensibility of chat-based artificial intelligence for patient information on atrial fibrillation and cardiac implantable electronic devices. Europace. (2023 ) 26:euad369. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1093/europace/euad369

  68. 68.

    Hirpara MM Amin L Aloyan T Shilleh N Lewis P. Does the internet provide quality information on metoidioplasty? Using the modified ensuring quality information for patients tool to evaluate artificial intelligence-generated and online information on metoidioplasty. Ann Plast Surg. (2024 ) 92:S361–5. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1097/sap.0000000000003797

  69. 69.

    Høj S Thomsen SF Meteran H Sigsgaard T. Artificial intelligence and allergic rhinitis: does Chatgpt increase or impair the knowledge? J Public Health (Oxf). (2024 ) 46:123–6

    Not in our library10.1093/pubmed/fdad219

  70. 70.

    Hristidis V Ruggiano N Brown EL Ganta SRR Stewart S. Chatgpt vs Google for queries related to dementia and other cognitive decline: comparison of results. J Med Internet Res. (2023 ) 25:e48966. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2196/48966

  71. 71.

    Ibrahim MT Khaskheli SA Shahzad H Noordin S. Language-adaptive artificial intelligence: assessing Chatgpt's answer to frequently asked questions on Total hip arthroplasty questions. J Pak Med Assoc. (2024 ) 74:S161–4. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.47391/jpma.aku-9s-25

  72. 72.

    Jazi AHD Mahjoubi M Shahabi S Alqahtani AR Haddad A Pazouki A. Bariatric evaluation through Ai: a survey of expert opinions versus Chatgpt-4 (Beta-Seov). Obes Surg. (2023 ) 33:3971–80. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1007/s11695-023-06903-w

  73. 73.

    Johns WL Kellish A Farronato D Ciccotti MG Hammoud S. Chatgpt can offer satisfactory responses to common patient questions regarding elbow ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. (2024 ) 6:100893. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.asmr.2024.100893

  74. 74.

    Johnson CM Bradley CS Kenne KA Rabice S Takacs E Vollstedt A. Evaluation of Chatgpt for pelvic floor surgery counseling. Urogynecology (Phila). (2024 ) 30:245–50. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1097/spv.0000000000001459

  75. 75.

    Juhi A Pipil N Santra S Mondal S Behera JK Mondal H. The capability of Chatgpt in predicting and explaining common drug-drug interactions. Cureus. (2023 ) 15:e36272. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.7759/cureus.36272

  76. 76.

    Kasthuri VS Glueck J Pham H Daher M Balmaceno-Criss M McDonald CL. Assessing the accuracy and reliability of Ai-generated responses to patient questions regarding spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. (2024 ) 106:1136–42

    Not in our library10.2106/jbjs.23.00914

  77. 77.

    Kim MJ Admane S Chang YK Shih KK Reddy A Tang M. Chatbot performance in defining and differentiating palliative care, supportive care, hospice care. J Pain Symptom Manage. (2024 ) 67:e381–91. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.01.008

  78. 78.

    King RC Samaan JS Yeo YH Mody B Lombardo DM Ghashghaei R. Appropriateness of Chatgpt in answering heart failure related questions. Heart Lung Circ. (2024 ) 33:1314–8. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.hlc.2024.03.005

  79. 79.

    King RC Samaan JS Yeo YH Peng Y Kunkel DC Habib AA. A multidisciplinary assessment of Chatgpt's knowledge of amyloidosis: observational study. JMIR Cardio. (2024 ) 8:e53421. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2196/53421

  80. 80.

    Köroğlu EY Fakı S Beştepe N Tam AA Çuhacı Seyrek N Topaloglu O. A novel approach: evaluating Chatgpt's utility for the management of thyroid nodules. Cureus. (2023 ) 15:e47576. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.7759/cureus.47576

  81. 81.

    Kozaily E Geagea M Akdogan ER Atkins J Elshazly MB Guglin M. Accuracy and consistency of online large language model-based artificial intelligence chat platforms in answering Patients' questions about heart failure. Int J Cardiol. (2024 ) 408:132115

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132115

  82. 82.

    Kuckelman IJ Wetley K Yi PH Ross AB. Translating musculoskeletal radiology reports into patient-friendly summaries using Chatgpt-4. Skeletal Radiol. (2024 ) 53:1621–4

    Not in our library10.1007/s00256-024-04599-2

  83. 83.

    Kuckelman IJ Yi PH Bui M Onuh I Anderson JA Ross AB. Assessing Ai-powered patient education: a case study in radiology. Acad Radiol. (2024 ) 31:338–42. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.acra.2023.08.020

  84. 84.

    Kuşcu O Pamuk AE Sütay Süslü N Hosal S. Is Chatgpt accurate and reliable in answering questions regarding head and neck Cancer? Front Oncol. (2023 ) 13:1256459. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.3389/fonc.2023.1256459

  85. 85.

    Lambert R Choo ZY Gradwohl K Schroedl L Ruiz De Luzuriaga A. Assessing the application of large language models in generating dermatologic patient education materials according to Reading level: qualitative study. JMIR Dermatol. (2024 ) 7:e55898. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2196/55898

  86. 86.

    Lang S Vitale J Fekete TF Haschtmann D Reitmeir R Ropelato M. Are large language models valid tools for patient information on lumbar disc herniation? The spine surgeons' perspective. Brain Spine. (2024 ) 4:102804. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bas.2024.102804

  87. 87.

    Lechien JR Carroll TL Huston MN Naunheim MR. Chatgpt-4 accuracy for patient education in laryngopharyngeal reflux. Eur Arch Otorrinolaringol. (2024 ) 281:2547–52. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1007/s00405-024-08560-w

  88. 88.

    Lee TJ Campbell DJ Patel S Hossain A Radfar N Siddiqui E. Unlocking health literacy: the ultimate guide to hypertension education from Chatgpt versus Google Gemini. Cureus. (2024 ) 16:e59898. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.7759/cureus.59898

  89. 89.

    Lee TJ Rao AK Campbell DJ Radfar N Dayal M Khrais A. Evaluating Chatgpt-3.5 and Chatgpt-4.0 responses on hyperlipidemia for patient education. Cureus. (2024 ) 16:e61067. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.7759/cureus.61067

  90. 90.

    Li L Li P Wang K Zhang L Zhao H Ji H. Benchmarking state-of-the-art large language models for migraine patient education: a comparison of performances on the responses to common queries. J Med Internet Res. (2024 ) 26:e55927. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2196/55927

  91. 91.

    Li W Chen J Chen F Liang J Yu H. Exploring the potential of Chatgpt-4 in responding to common questions about Abdominoplasty: An Ai-based case study of a plastic surgery consultation. Aesth Plast Surg. (2024 ) 48:1571–83. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1007/s00266-023-03660-0

  92. 92.

    Lim B Seth I Kah S Sofiadellis F Ross RJ Rozen WM. Using generative artificial intelligence tools in cosmetic surgery: a study on Rhinoplasty, facelifts, and blepharoplasty procedures. J Clin Med. (2023 ) 12:6524. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.3390/jcm12206524

  93. 93.

    Liu HY Alessandri Bonetti M De Lorenzi F Gimbel ML Nguyen VT Egro FM. Consulting the digital doctor: Google versus Chatgpt as sources of information on breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma and breast implant illness. Aesth Plast Surg. (2024 ) 48:590–607. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1007/s00266-023-03713-4

  94. 94.

    Liu S McCoy AB Wright AP Carew B Genkins JZ Huang SS. Leveraging large language models for generating responses to patient messages-a subjective analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. (2024 ) 31:1367–79. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1093/jamia/ocae052

  95. 95.

    Lv X Zhang X Li Y Ding X Lai H Shi J. Leveraging large language models for improved patient access and self-management: Assessor-blinded comparison between expert-and Ai-generated content. J Med Internet Res. (2024 ) 26:e55847. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2196/55847

  96. 96.

    Mashatian S Armstrong DG Ritter A Robbins J Aziz S Alenabi I. Building trustworthy generative artificial intelligence for diabetes care and limb preservation: a medical knowledge extraction case. J Diabetes Sci Technol. (2024 ):19322968241253568. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1177/19322968241253568

  97. 97.

    Mastrokostas PG Mastrokostas LE Emara AK Wellington IJ Ginalis E Houten JK. Gpt-4 as a source of patient information for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a comparative analysis against Google web search. Global. Spine J. (2024 ):21925682241241241. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1177/21925682241241241

  98. 98.

    McCarthy CJ Berkowitz S Ramalingam V Ahmed M. Evaluation of an artificial intelligence Chatbot for delivery of Ir patient education material: a comparison with societal website content. J Vasc Interv Radiol. (2023 ) 34:1760–8.e32. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jvir.2023.05.037

  99. 99.

    Mika AP Martin JR Engstrom SM Polkowski GG Wilson JM. Assessing Chatgpt responses to common patient questions regarding Total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. (2023 ) 105:1519–26. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2106/jbjs.23.00209

  100. 100.

    Mika AP Mulvey HE Engstrom SM Polkowski GG Martin JR Wilson JM. Can Chatgpt answer patient questions regarding Total knee arthroplasty? J Knee Surg. (2024 ) 37:664–73. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1055/s-0044-1782233

  101. 101.

    Mishra V Sarraju A Kalwani NM Dexter JP. Evaluation of prompts to simplify cardiovascular disease information generated using a large language model: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. (2024 ) 26:e55388. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2196/55388

  102. 102.

    Moazzam Z Lima HA Endo Y Noria S Needleman B Pawlik TM. A paradigm shift: online artificial intelligence platforms as an informational resource in bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. (2023 ) 33:2611–4

    Not in our library10.1007/s11695-023-06675-3

  103. 103.

    Moise A Centomo-Bozzo A Orishchak O Alnoury MK Daniel SJ. Can Chatgpt guide parents on Tympanostomy tube insertion? Children (Basel). (2023 ) 10:1634

    Not in our library10.3390/children10101634

  104. 104.

    Mondal H Mondal S Podder I. Using Chatgpt for writing articles for Patients' education for dermatological diseases: a pilot study. Indian Dermatol Online J. (2023 ) 14:482–6. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.4103/idoj.idoj_72_23

  105. 105.

    Mondal H Panigrahi M Mishra B Behera JK Mondal S. A pilot study on the capability of artificial intelligence in preparation of Patients' educational materials for Indian public health issues. J Family Med Prim Care. (2023 ) 12:1659–62. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_262_23

  106. 106.

    Monroe CL Abdelhafez YG Atsina K Aman E Nardo L Madani MH. Evaluation of responses to cardiac imaging questions by the artificial intelligence large language model Chatgpt. Clin Imaging. (2024 ) 112:110193. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.clinimag.2024.110193

  107. 107.

    Mootz AA Carvalho B Sultan P Nguyen TP Reale SC. The accuracy of Chatgpt-generated responses in answering commonly asked patient questions about labor epidurals: a survey-based study. Anesth Analg. (2024 ) 138:1142–4. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1213/ane.0000000000006801

  108. 108.

    Munir MM Endo Y Ejaz A Dillhoff M Cloyd JM Pawlik TM. Online artificial intelligence platforms and their applicability to gastrointestinal surgical operations. J Gastrointest Surg. (2024 ) 28:64–9. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.gassur.2023.11.019

  109. 109.

    Musheyev D Pan A Loeb S Kabarriti AE. How well Do artificial intelligence Chatbots respond to the top search queries about urological malignancies? Eur Urol. (2024 ) 85:13–6. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.eururo.2023.07.004

  110. 110.
    Putting ChatGPT’s Medical Advice to the (Turing) Test: Survey Study · 2023
    No notice
  111. 111.

    O'Hagan R Kim RH Abittan BJ Caldas S Ungar J Ungar B. Trends in accuracy and appropriateness of alopecia Areata information obtained from a popular online large language model, Chatgpt. Dermatology. (2023 ) 239:952–7. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1159/000534005

  112. 112.

    Pan A Musheyev D Bockelman D Loeb S Kabarriti AE. Assessment of artificial intelligence Chatbot responses to top searched queries about Cancer. JAMA Oncol. (2023 ) 9:1437–40. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.2947

  113. 113.

    Parekh AS McCahon JAS Nghe A Pedowitz DI Daniel JN Parekh SG. Foot and ankle patient education materials and artificial intelligence Chatbots: a comparative analysis. Foot Ankle Spec. (2024 ):19386400241235834. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1177/19386400241235834

  114. 114.

    Pohl NB Derector E Rivlin M Bachoura A Tosti R Kachooei AR. A quality and readability comparison of artificial intelligence and popular health website education materials for common hand surgery procedures. Hand Surg Rehabil. (2024 ) 43:101723. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.hansur.2024.101723

  115. 115.

    Potapenko I Malmqvist L Subhi Y Hamann S. Artificial intelligence-based Chatgpt responses for patient questions on optic disc Drusen. Ophthalmol Ther. (2023 ) 12:3109–19. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1007/s40123-023-00800-2

  116. 116.

    Pradhan F Fiedler A Samson K Olivera-Martinez M Manatsathit W Peeraphatdit T. Artificial intelligence compared with human-derived patient educational materials on cirrhosis. Hepatol Commun. (2024 ) 8:e0367. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1097/hc9.0000000000000367

  117. 117.

    Rahimli Ocakoglu S Coskun B. The emerging role of Ai in patient education: a comparative analysis of Llm accuracy for pelvic organ prolapse. Med Princ Pract. (2024 ) 33:330–7

    Not in our library10.1159/000538538

  118. 118.

    Razdan S Siegal AR Brewer Y Sljivich M Valenzuela RJ. Assessing Chatgpt's ability to answer questions pertaining to erectile dysfunction: can our patients trust it? Int J Impot Res. (2023 ). doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1038/s41443-023-00797-z

  119. 119.

    Reichenpfader D Rösslhuemer P Denecke K. Large language model-based evaluation of medical question answering systems: algorithm development and case study. Stud Health Technol Inform. (2024 ) 313:22–7. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.3233/shti240006

  120. 120.

    Roster K Kann RB Farabi B Gronbeck C Brownstone N Lipner SR. Readability and health literacy scores for Chatgpt-generated dermatology public education materials: cross-sectional analysis of sunscreen and melanoma questions. JMIR Dermatol. (2024 ) 7:e50163. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2196/50163

  121. 121.
    Assessing the Accuracy of Responses by the Language Model ChatGPT to Questions Regarding Bariatric Surgery · 2023
    No notice
  122. 122.

    Şan H Bayrakçi Ö Çağdaş B Serdengeçti M Alagöz E. Reliability and readability analysis of Gpt-4 and Google Bard as a patient information source for the Most commonly applied radionuclide treatments in Cancer patients. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol (Engl Ed). (2024 ):500021

    Not in our library10.1016/j.remnie.2024.500021

  123. 123.

    Sciberras M Farrugia Y Gordon H Furfaro F Allocca M Torres J. Accuracy of information given by Chatgpt for patients with inflammatory bowel disease in relation to Ecco guidelines. J Crohns Colitis. (2024 ) 18:1215–21

    Not in our library10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjae040

  124. 124.

    Şenoymak MC Erbatur NH Şenoymak İ Fırat SN. The role of artificial intelligence in endocrine management: assessing Chatgpt's responses to Prolactinoma queries. J Pers Med. (2024 ) 14:330. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.3390/jpm14040330

  125. 125.

    Seth I Cox A Xie Y Bulloch G Hunter-Smith DJ Rozen WM. Evaluating Chatbot efficacy for answering frequently asked questions in plastic surgery: a Chatgpt case study focused on breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J. (2023 ) 43:1126–35. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1093/asj/sjad140

  126. 126.

    Shah YB Ghosh A Hochberg AR Rapoport E Lallas CD Shah MS. Comparison of Chatgpt and traditional patient education materials for Men's health. Urol Pract. (2024 ) 11:87–94. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1097/upj.0000000000000490

  127. 127.

    Shen SA Perez-Heydrich CA Xie DX Nellis JC. Chatgpt vs. web search for patient questions: what does Chatgpt Do better? Eur Arch Otorrinolaringol. (2024 ) 281:3219–25. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1007/s00405-024-08524-0

  128. 128.

    Shiraishi M Lee H Kanayama K Moriwaki Y Okazaki M. Appropriateness of artificial intelligence Chatbots in diabetic foot ulcer management. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. (2024 ):15347346241236811. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1177/15347346241236811

  129. 129.

    Song H Xia Y Luo Z Liu H Song Y Zeng X. Evaluating the performance of different large language models on health consultation and patient education in Urolithiasis. J Med Syst. (2023 ) 47:125. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1007/s10916-023-02021-3

  130. 130.

    Spallek S Birrell L Kershaw S Devine EK Thornton L. Can we use Chatgpt for mental health and substance use education? Examining its quality and potential harms. JMIR Med Educ. (2023 ) 9:e51243. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2196/51243

  131. 131.

    Srinivasan N Samaan JS Rajeev ND Kanu MU Yeo YH Samakar K. Large language models and bariatric surgery patient education: a comparative readability analysis of Gpt-3.5, Gpt-4, Bard, and online institutional resources. Surg Endosc. (2024 ) 38:2522–32. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1007/s00464-024-10720-2

  132. 132.

    Subramanian T Araghi K Amen TB Kaidi A Sosa B Shahi P. Chat generative Pretraining transformer answers patient-focused questions in cervical spine surgery. Clin Spine Surg. (2024 ) 37:E278–81. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1097/bsd.0000000000001600

  133. 133.

    Tailor PD Dalvin LA Chen JJ Iezzi R Olsen TW Scruggs BA. A comparative study of responses to retina questions from either experts, expert-edited large language models, or expert-edited large language models alone. Ophthalmol Sci. (2024 ) 4:100485. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.xops.2024.100485

  134. 134.

    Tailor PD Xu TT Fortes BH Iezzi R Olsen TW Starr MR. Appropriateness of ophthalmology recommendations from an online chat-based artificial intelligence model. Mayo Clin Proc Digit Health. (2024 ) 2:119–28. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.mcpdig.2024.01.003

  135. 135.

    Tao BK Handzic A Hua NJ Vosoughi AR Margolin EA Micieli JA. Utility of Chatgpt for automated creation of patient education handouts: An application in neuro-ophthalmology. J Neuroophthalmol. (2024 ) 44:119–24. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1097/wno.0000000000002074

  136. 136.

    WLT T Cheng R Weinblatt AI Bergstein V Long WJ. An artificial intelligence Chatbot is an accurate and useful online patient resource prior to Total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. (2024 ) 39:S358–62. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.arth.2024.02.005

  137. 137.

    Tepe M Emekli E. Assessing the responses of large language models (Chatgpt-4, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot) to frequently asked questions in breast imaging: a study on readability and accuracy. Cureus. (2024 ) 16:e59960. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.7759/cureus.59960

  138. 138.

    Tharakan S Klein B Bartlett L Atlas A Parada SA Cohn RM. Do Chatgpt and Google differ in answers to commonly asked patient questions regarding Total shoulder and Total elbow arthroplasty? J Shoulder Elb Surg. (2024 ) 33:e429–37. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jse.2023.11.014

  139. 139.

    Thia I Saluja M. Chatgpt: is this patient education tool for urological malignancies readable for the general population? Res Rep Urol. (2024 ) 16:31–7. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2147/rru.s440633

  140. 140.

    Van Bulck L Moons P. What if your patient switches from Dr. Google to Dr. Chatgpt? A vignette-based survey of the trustworthiness, value, and danger of Chatgpt-generated responses to health questions. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. (2024 ) 23:95–8. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1093/eurjcn/zvad038

  141. 141.

    Washington CJ Abouyared M Karanth S Braithwaite D Birkeland A Silverman DA. The use of Chatbots in head and neck mucosal malignancy treatment recommendations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2024 ) 171:1062–8. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1002/ohn.818

  142. 142.

    Wei K Fritz C Rajasekaran K. Answering head and neck Cancer questions: An assessment of Chatgpt responses. Am J Otolaryngol. (2024 ) 45:104085. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.amjoto.2023.104085

  143. 143.

    Wrenn SP Mika AP Ponce RB Mitchell PM. Evaluating Chatgpt's ability to answer common patient questions regarding hip fracture. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. (2024 ) 32:656–9. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.5435/jaaos-d-23-00877

  144. 144.

    Wright BM Bodnar MS Moore AD Maseda MC Kucharik MP Diaz CC. Is Chatgpt a trusted source of information for Total hip and knee arthroplasty patients? Bone Jt Open. (2024 ) 5:139–46. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1302/2633-1462.52.bjo-2023-0113.r1

  145. 145.

    Wu G Zhao W Wong A Lee DA. Patients with floaters: answers from virtual assistants and large language models. Digit Health. (2024 ) 10:20552076241229933. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1177/20552076241229933

  146. 146.

    Wu Y Zhang Z Dong X Hong S Hu Y Liang P. Evaluating the performance of the language model Chatgpt in responding to common questions of people with epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. (2024 ) 151:109645. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.yebeh.2024.109645

  147. 147.

    Yalla GR Hyman N Hock LE Zhang Q Shukla AG Kolomeyer NN. Performance of artificial intelligence Chatbots on Glaucoma questions adapted from patient brochures. Cureus. (2024 ) 16:e56766. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.7759/cureus.56766

  148. 148.

    Yan S Du D Liu X Dai Y Kim MK Zhou X. Assessment of the reliability and clinical applicability of Chatgpt's responses to Patients' common queries about Rosacea. Patient Prefer Adherence. (2024 ) 18:249–53. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2147/ppa.s444928

  149. 149.

    Yan SY Liu YF Ma L Xiao LL Hu X Guo R. Walking forward or on hold: could the Chatgpt be applied for seeking health information in neurosurgical settings? Ibrain. (2024 ) 10:111–5. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1002/ibra.12149

  150. 150.

    Ye C Zweck E Ma Z Smith J Katz S. Doctor versus artificial intelligence: patient and physician evaluation of large language model responses to rheumatology patient questions in a cross-sectional study. Arthritis Rheumatol. (2024 ) 76:479–84. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1002/art.42737

  151. 151.

    Yeo YH Samaan JS Ng WH Ting PS Trivedi H Vipani A. Assessing the performance of Chatgpt in answering questions regarding cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Mol Hepatol. (2023 ) 29:721–32. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.3350/cmh.2023.0089

  152. 152.

    Yılmaz IBE Doğan L. Talking technology: exploring Chatbots as a tool for cataract patient education. Clin Exp Optom. (2024 ):1–9

    Not in our library10.1080/08164622.2023.2298812

  153. 153.

    Yüce A Erkurt N Yerli M Misir A. The potential of Chatgpt for high-quality information in patient education for sports surgery. Cureus. (2024 ) 16:e58874. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.7759/cureus.58874

  154. 154.

    Yun JY Kim DJ Lee N Kim EK. A comprehensive evaluation of Chatgpt consultation quality for augmentation mammoplasty: a comparative analysis between plastic surgeons and laypersons. Int J Med Inform. (2023 ) 179:105219. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105219

  155. 155.

    Zalzal HG Abraham A Cheng J Shah RK. Can ChatGPT help patients answer their otolaryngology questions? Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. (2024 ) 9:e1193. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1002/lio2.1193

  156. 156.

    Zhang S Liau ZQG Tan KLM Chua WL. Evaluating the accuracy and relevance of Chatgpt responses to frequently asked questions regarding total knee replacement. Knee Surg Relat Res. (2024 ) 36:15. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1186/s43019-024-00218-5

  157. 157.

    Zhang Y Dong Y Mei Z Hou Y Wei M Yeung YH. Performance of large language models on benign prostatic hyperplasia frequently asked questions. Prostate. (2024 ) 84:807–13. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1002/pros.24699

  158. 158.

    Abreu AA Murimwa GZ Farah E Stewart JW Zhang L Rodriguez J. Enhancing readability of online patient-facing content: the role of Ai Chatbots in improving Cancer information accessibility. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. (2024 ) 22:e237334

    Not in our library10.6004/jnccn.2023.7334

  159. 159.

    Ayre J Mac O McCaffery K McKay BR Liu M Shi Y. New Frontiers in health literacy: using Chatgpt to simplify health information for people in the community. J Gen Intern Med. (2024 ) 39:573–7. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1007/s11606-023-08469-w

  160. 160.

    Baldwin AJ. An artificial intelligence language model improves readability of burns first aid information. Burns. (2024 ) 50:1122–7. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.burns.2024.03.005

  161. 161.

    Browne R Gull K Hurley CM Sugrue RM O'Sullivan JB. Chatgpt-4 can help hand surgeons communicate better with patients. J Hand Surg Glob Online. (2024 ) 6:436–8. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jhsg.2024.03.008

  162. 162.

    Covington EW Watts Alexander CS Sewell J Hutchison AM Kay J Tocco L. Unlocking the future of patient education: Chatgpt vs. Lexicomp® as sources of patient education materials. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). (2024 ):102119

    Not in our library10.1016/j.japh.2024.102119

  163. 163.

    Dihan Q Chauhan MZ Eleiwa TK Hassan AK Sallam AB Khouri AS. Using large language models to generate educational materials on childhood Glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. (2024 ) 265:28–38. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ajo.2024.04.004

  164. 164.

    Eid K Eid A Wang D Raiker RS Chen S Nguyen J. Optimizing ophthalmology patient education via Chatbot-generated materials: readability analysis of Ai-generated patient education materials and the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Patient Brochures. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. (2024 ) 40:212–6. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1097/iop.0000000000002549

  165. 165.

    Eppler MB Ganjavi C Knudsen JE Davis RJ Ayo-Ajibola O Desai A. Bridging the gap between urological research and patient understanding: the role of large language models in automated generation of Layperson's summaries. Urol Pract. (2023 ) 10:436–43. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1097/upj.0000000000000428

  166. 166.

    Fanning JE Escobar-Domingo MJ Foppiani J Lee D Miller AS Janis JE. Improving readability and automating content analysis of plastic surgery webpages with Chatgpt. J Surg Res. (2024 ) 299:103–11. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jss.2024.04.006

  167. 167.

    Hung YC Chaker SC Sigel M Saad M Slater ED. Comparison of patient education materials generated by chat generative pre-trained transformer versus experts: An innovative way to increase readability of patient education materials. Ann Plast Surg. (2023 ) 91:409–12. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1097/sap.0000000000003634

  168. 168.

    Kirchner GJ Kim RY Weddle JB Bible JE. Can artificial intelligence improve the readability of patient education materials? Clin Orthop Relat Res. (2023 ) 481:2260–7. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1097/corr.0000000000002668

  169. 169.

    Moons P Van Bulck L. Using Chatgpt and Google Bard to improve the readability of written patient information: a proof of concept. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. (2024 ) 23:122–6. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1093/eurjcn/zvad087

  170. 170.

    Patel EA Fleischer L Filip P Eggerstedt M Hutz M Michaelides E. The use of artificial intelligence to improve readability of otolaryngology patient education materials. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2024 ) 171:603–8. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1002/ohn.816

  171. 171.

    Rouhi AD Ghanem YK Yolchieva L Saleh Z Joshi H Moccia MC. Can artificial intelligence improve the readability of patient education materials on aortic stenosis? A pilot study. Cardiol Ther. (2024 ) 13:137–47. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1007/s40119-023-00347-0

  172. 172.

    Sridharan K Sivaramakrishnan G. Enhancing readability of Usfda patient communications through large language models: a proof-of-concept study. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. (2024 ) 17:731–41. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1080/17512433.2024.2363840

  173. 173.

    Sudharshan R Shen A Gupta S Zhang-Nunes S. Assessing the utility of Chatgpt in simplifying text complexity of patient educational materials. Cureus. (2024 ) 16:e55304. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.7759/cureus.55304

  174. 174.

    Vallurupalli M Shah ND Vyas RM. Validation of Chatgpt 3.5 as a tool to optimize readability of patient-facing craniofacial education materials. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. (2024 ) 12:e5575. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1097/gox.0000000000005575

  175. 175.

    Grimm DR Lee YJ Hu K Liu L Garcia O Balakrishnan K. The utility of Chatgpt as a generative medical translator. Eur Arch Otorrinolaringol. (2024 ). doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1007/s00405-024-08708-8

  176. 176.

    He Z Bhasuran B Jin Q Tian S Hanna K Shavor C. Quality of answers of generative large language models versus peer users for interpreting laboratory test results for lay patients: evaluation study. J Med Internet Res. (2024 ) 26:e56655. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2196/56655

  177. 177.

    Meyer A Soleman A Riese J Streichert T. Comparison of Chatgpt, Gemini, and Le chat with physician interpretations of medical laboratory questions from an online health forum. Clin Chem Lab Med. (2024 ) 62:2425–34. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1515/cclm-2024-0246

  178. 178.
    Translating radiology reports into plain language using ChatGPT and GPT-4 with prompt learning: results, limitations, and potential · 2023
    No notice
  179. 179.

    Sarangi PK Lumbani A Swarup MS Panda S Sahoo SS Hui P. Assessing Chatgpt's proficiency in simplifying radiological reports for healthcare professionals and patients. Cureus. (2023 ) 15:e50881. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.7759/cureus.50881

  180. 180.

    Rogasch JMM Metzger G Preisler M Galler M Thiele F Brenner W. Chatgpt: can You prepare my patients for [(18) F] Fdg pet/Ct and explain my reports? J Nucl Med. (2023 ) 64:1876–9. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2967/jnumed.123.266114

  181. 181.

    Tepe M Emekli E. Decoding medical jargon: the use of Ai language models (Chatgpt-4, Bard, Microsoft Copilot) in radiology reports. Patient Educ Couns. (2024 ) 126:108307. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.pec.2024.108307

  182. 182.

    Woo KC Simon GW Akindutire O Aphinyanaphongs Y Austrian JS Kim JG. Evaluation of Gpt-4 ability to identify and generate patient instructions for actionable incidental radiology findings. J Am Med Inform Assoc. (2024 ) 31:1983–93. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1093/jamia/ocae117

  183. 183.
    Generative Artificial Intelligence to Transform Inpatient Discharge Summaries to Patient-Friendly Language and Format · 2024
    No notice
  184. 184.

    Alanezi F. Examining the role of Chatgpt in promoting health behaviors and lifestyle changes among Cancer patients. Nutr Health. (2024 ):2601060241244563. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1177/02601060241244563

  185. 185.

    Bragazzi NL Garbarino S. Assessing the accuracy of generative conversational artificial intelligence in debunking sleep health myths: mixed methods comparative study with expert analysis. JMIR Form Res. (2024 ) 8:e55762. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2196/55762

  186. 186.

    Garbarino S Bragazzi NL. Evaluating the effectiveness of artificial intelligence-based tools in detecting and understanding sleep health misinformation: comparative analysis using Google Bard and Openai Chatgpt-4. J Sleep Res. (2024 ):e14210. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1111/jsr.14210

  187. 187.

    Gray M Baird A Sawyer T James J DeBroux T Bartlett M. Increasing realism and variety of virtual patient dialogues for prenatal counseling education through a novel application of Chatgpt: exploratory observational study. JMIR Med Educ. (2024 ) 10:e50705. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2196/50705

  188. 188.

    Minutolo A Damiano E De Pietro G Fujita H Esposito M. A conversational agent for querying Italian patient information leaflets and improving health literacy. Comput Biol Med. (2022 ) 141:105004. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.105004

  189. 189.

    Mondal H Dash I Mondal S Behera JK. Chatgpt in answering queries related to lifestyle-related diseases and disorders. Cureus. (2023 ) 15:e48296. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.7759/cureus.48296

  190. 190.

    Ponzo V Goitre I Favaro E Merlo FD Mancino MV Riso S. Is Chatgpt an effective tool for providing dietary advice? Nutrients. (2024 ) 16:469. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.3390/nu16040469

  191. 191.

    Zaleski AL Berkowsky R Craig KJT Pescatello LS. Comprehensiveness, accuracy, and readability of exercise recommendations provided by an Ai-based Chatbot: mixed methods study. JMIR Med Educ. (2024 ) 10:e51308. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2196/51308

  192. 192.

    Altamimi I Altamimi A Alhumimidi AS Temsah MH. Snakebite advice and counseling from artificial intelligence: An acute venomous snakebite consultation with Chatgpt. Cureus. (2023 ) 15:e40351. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.7759/cureus.40351

  193. 193.

    McMahon HV McMahon BD. Automating untruths: Chatgpt, self-managed medication abortion, and the threat of misinformation in a post-roe world. Front Digit Health. (2024 ) 6:1287186. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.3389/fdgth.2024.1287186

  194. 194.

    Aliyeva A Sari E Alaskarov E Nasirov R. Enhancing postoperative Cochlear implant care with Chatgpt-4: a study on artificial intelligence (Ai)-assisted patient education and support. Cureus. (2024 ) 16:e53897

    Not in our library10.7759/cureus.53897

  195. 195.

    Scheschenja M Viniol S Bastian MB Wessendorf J König AM Mahnken AH. Feasibility of Gpt-3 and Gpt-4 for in-depth patient education prior to interventional radiological procedures: a comparative analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. (2024 ) 47:245–50. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1007/s00270-023-03563-2

  196. 196.

    Bains SS Dubin JA Hameed D Sax OC Douglas S Mont MA. Use and application of large language models for patient questions following Total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. (2024 ) 39:2289–94. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.arth.2024.03.017

  197. 197.

    Borna S Gomez-Cabello CA Pressman SM Haider SA Sehgal A Leibovich BC. Comparative analysis of artificial intelligence virtual assistant and large language models in post-operative care. Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ. (2024 ) 14:1413–24. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.3390/ejihpe14050093

  198. 198.

    Capelleras M Soto-Galindo GA Cruellas M Apaydin F. Chatgpt and Rhinoplasty recovery: An exploration of Ai's role in postoperative guidance. Facial Plast Surg. (2024 ) 40:628–31. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1055/a-2219-4901

  199. 199.

    Chaker SC Hung YC Saad M Golinko MS Galdyn IA. Easing the burden on caregivers-applications of artificial intelligence for physicians and caregivers of children with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. (2024 ):10556656231223596

    Not in our library10.1177/10556656231223596

  200. 200.

    Shao CY Li H Liu XL Li C Yang LQ Zhang YJ. Appropriateness and comprehensiveness of using Chatgpt for perioperative patient education in thoracic surgery in different language contexts: survey study. Interact J Med Res. (2023 ) 12:e46900. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2196/46900

  201. 201.

    Lee JC Hamill CS Shnayder Y Buczek E Kakarala K Bur AM. Exploring the role of artificial intelligence Chatbots in preoperative counseling for head and neck Cancer surgery. Laryngoscope. (2024 ) 134:2757–61. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1002/lary.31243

  202. 202.

    Nanji K Yu CW Wong TY Sivaprasad S Steel DH Wykoff CC. Evaluation of postoperative ophthalmology patient instructions from Chatgpt and Google search. Can J Ophthalmol. (2024 ) 59:e69–71

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jcjo.2023.10.001

  203. 203.

    Dhar S Kothari D Vasquez M Clarke T Maroda A McClain WG. The utility and accuracy of Chatgpt in providing post-operative instructions following tonsillectomy: a pilot study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. (2024 ) 179:111901. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijporl.2024.111901

  204. 204.

    Patil NS Huang R Mihalache A Kisilevsky E Kwok J Popovic MM. The ability of artificial intelligence Chatbots Chatgpt and Google Bard to accurately convey preoperative information for patients undergoing ophthalmic surgeries. Retina. (2024 ) 44:950–3. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1097/iae.0000000000004044

  205. 205.

    Meyer R Hamilton KM Truong MD Wright KN Siedhoff MT Brezinov Y. Chatgpt compared with Google search and healthcare institution as sources of postoperative patient instructions after gynecological surgery. BJOG. (2024 ) 131:1154–6. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1111/1471-0528.17746

  206. 206.

    Breneman A Gordon ER Trager MH Ensslin CJ Fisher J Humphreys TR. Evaluation of large language model responses to Mohs surgery preoperative questions. Arch Dermatol Res. (2024 ) 316:227. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1007/s00403-024-02956-8

  207. 207.

    Kienzle A Niemann M Meller S Gwinner C. Chatgpt may offer an adequate substitute for informed consent to patients prior to Total knee arthroplasty-yet caution is needed. J Pers Med. (2024 ) 14:69. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.3390/jpm14010069

  208. 208.

    Ali R Connolly ID Tang OY Mirza FN Johnston B Abdulrazeq HF. Bridging the literacy gap for surgical consents: An Ai-human expert collaborative approach. NPJ Digit Med. (2024 ) 7:63. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1038/s41746-024-01039-2

  209. 209.

    Shiraishi M Tomioka Y Miyakuni A Moriwaki Y Yang R Oba J. Generating informed consent documents related to blepharoplasty using Chatgpt. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. (2024 ) 40:316–20. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1097/iop.0000000000002574

  210. 210.

    An Y Fang Q Wang L. Enhancing patient education in Cancer care: intelligent Cancer patient education model for effective communication. Comput Biol Med. (2024 ) 169:107874. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107874

  211. 211.

    Roberts RHR Ali SR Dobbs TD Whitaker IS. Can large language models generate outpatient clinic letters at first consultation that incorporate complication profiles from Uk and USA aesthetic plastic surgery associations? Aesthet Surg J Open Forum. (2024 ) 6:ojad 109. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.1093/asjof/ojad109

  212. 212.

    Xue Z Zhang Y Gan W Wang H She G Zheng X. Quality and dependability of Chatgpt and Dingxiangyuan forums for remote orthopedic consultations: comparative analysis. J Med Internet Res. (2024 ) 26:e50882. doi:, PMID:

    Not in our library10.2196/50882

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.