Patient education tools for chronic pain medications, AI versus traditional PILs – Clarifications

Dear Editor, We appreciate the readers’ interest in our study[1] and their thoughtful feedback.[2,3] Our focus was on common chronic pain medication problems, and expanding the scope would dilute our findings. We used sentiment analysis to compare artificial intelligence (AI) and traditional patient information leaflets (PILs), setting a foundation for future research on patient engagement.[4] We addressed expert panel bias with a diverse team, using objective tools like readability scores and Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT) to complement subjective evaluations. It is worth noting that subjective evaluation by a panel of experts is a widely accepted method in assessing educational materials, especially in clinical settings.[5,6] Metrics such as Flesch Reading Ease are widely accepted and offer reliable benchmarks.[7,8] While qualitative insights are valuable, we prioritised measurable metrics like readability and accuracy for baseline comparisons. Suggestions for broader studies and adaptive AI systems raise interesting points, as well as ethical and technical challenges such as the risk of misinformation.[9] While patient feedback would enhance future research, it introduces subjectivity that can be difficult to standardise. In summary, while acknowledging the limitations of the study, we believe our study offers a robust comparison. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.