Readability, reliability and quality of responses generated by ChatGPT, gemini, and perplexity for the most frequently asked questions about pain

It is clear that artificial intelligence-based chatbots will be popular applications in the field of healthcare in the near future. It is known that more than 30% of the world's population suffers from chronic pain and individuals try to access the health information they need through online platforms before applying to the hospital. This study aimed to examine the readability, reliability and quality of the responses given by 3 different artificial intelligence chatbots (ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity) to frequently asked questions about pain. In this study, the 25 most frequently used keywords related to pain were determined using Google Trend and asked to every 3 artificial intelligence chatbots. The readability of the response texts was determined by Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Gunning Fog and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level readability scoring. Reliability assessment was determined by the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), DISCERN scales. Global Quality Score and Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) score were used in quality assessment. As a result of Google Trend search, the first 3 keywords were determined as "back pain," "stomach pain," and "chest pain." The readability of the answers given by all 3 artificial intelligence applications was determined to be higher than the recommended 6th grade readability level (P < .001). In the readability evaluation, the order from easy to difficult was determined as Google Gemini, ChatGPT and Perplexity. Higher GQS scores (P = .008) were detected in Gemini compared to other chatbots. Perplexity had higher JAMA, DISCERN and EQIP scores compared to other chatbots, respectively (P < .001, P < .001, P < .05). It has been determined that the answers given by ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity to pain-related questions are difficult to read and their reliability and quality are low. It can be stated that these artificial intelligence chatbots cannot replace a comprehensive medical consultation. In artificial intelligence applications, it may be recommended to facilitate the readability of text content, create texts containing reliable references, and control them by a supervisory expert team.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medicine
Published
2025-03-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000041780
Citations
22
Primary Topic
Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
61.94
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Readability, reliability and quality of responses generated by ChatGPT, gemini, and perplexity for the most frequently asked questions about pain

Volkan Hancı, Sibel Büyükçoban, Erkan Özduran, Yüksel Erkin et al.
22 citations
Medicine
Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
61.94
article

Readability, reliability and quality of responses generated by ChatGPT, gemini, and perplexity for the most frequently asked questions about pain

Volkan Hancı, Sibel Büyükçoban, Erkan Özduran, Yüksel Erkin, İbrahim Akkoç
article en
22 citations

Abstract

It is clear that artificial intelligence-based chatbots will be popular applications in the field of healthcare in the near future. It is known that more than 30% of the world's population suffers from chronic pain and individuals try to access the health information they need through online platforms before applying to the hospital. This study aimed to examine the readability, reliability and quality of the responses given by 3 different artificial intelligence chatbots (ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity) to frequently asked questions about pain. In this study, the 25 most frequently used keywords related to pain were determined using Google Trend and asked to every 3 artificial intelligence chatbots. The readability of the response texts was determined by Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Gunning Fog and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level readability scoring. Reliability assessment was determined by the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), DISCERN scales. Global Quality Score and Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) score were used in quality assessment. As a result of Google Trend search, the first 3 keywords were determined as "back pain," "stomach pain," and "chest pain." The readability of the answers given by all 3 artificial intelligence applications was determined to be higher than the recommended 6th grade readability level (P < .001). In the readability evaluation, the order from easy to difficult was determined as Google Gemini, ChatGPT and Perplexity. Higher GQS scores (P = .008) were detected in Gemini compared to other chatbots. Perplexity had higher JAMA, DISCERN and EQIP scores compared to other chatbots, respectively (P < .001, P < .001, P < .05). It has been determined that the answers given by ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity to pain-related questions are difficult to read and their reliability and quality are low. It can be stated that these artificial intelligence chatbots cannot replace a comprehensive medical consultation. In artificial intelligence applications, it may be recommended to facilitate the readability of text content, create texts containing reliable references, and control them by a supervisory expert team.

MedicineVol. 104(11)
Dokuz Eylül University (TR), Sivas State Hospital (TR), Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi (TR)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
61.94
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.