Artificial Intelligence Chatbots for Dysphagia Patient Education: A Multi‐Center International Expert Evaluation

BACKGROUND: Patients increasingly consult artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots for health information, yet the reliability and accessibility of AI-generated content for complex conditions like dysphagia remain unvalidated. We conducted the first head-to-head comparison of leading large language models for dysphagia patient education, evaluated by an international expert panel. METHODS: Forty-six validated questions across four clinical domains were submitted to ChatGPT-4.0 (OpenAI) and Claude 3.7 (Anthropic) in March 2025. Ten blinded experts from six countries rated responses for scientific accuracy (5-point Likert), clarity (5-point Likert), and misinformation (binary). Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and SMOG Index. Between-model comparisons used Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Cohen's d effect sizes. KEY RESULTS: No significant differences emerged for scientific accuracy (ChatGPT: 3.87 ± 0.36 vs. Claude: 3.93 ± 0.35; p = 0.26; d = 0.16), clarity (4.12 ± 0.34 vs. 4.15 ± 0.27; p = 0.67; d = 0.11), or mean misinformation rates (both 2.15; p = 0.96). Strong inter-model correlation existed for accuracy (rs = 0.678; p < 0.001). Critically, both models produced content far exceeding recommended readability levels: SMOG indices of 14.95 ± 2.40 years (ChatGPT) and 17.37 ± 2.67 years (Claude) required extensive education (p < 0.001; d = 0.95) versus the recommended 6-7 years. Categorical analysis showed Claude generated three times more misinformation-free responses (19.6% vs. 6.5%; p = 0.077). CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Leading AI chatbots demonstrate equivalent, acceptable accuracy for dysphagia information but produce content inaccessible to most patients due to excessive complexity. The strong inter-model correlation suggests shared limitations in medical training data. Before clinical implementation, AI-generated patient education requires mandatory readability optimization to address the substantial health literacy gap identified in this study.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Neurogastroenterology & Motility
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.70344
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Artificial Intelligence Chatbots for Dysphagia Patient Education: A Multi‐Center International Expert Evaluation

Luisa Bertin, Jerome Rene Lechien, Amir Mari, Sílvia Carrión et al.
Neurogastroenterology & Motility
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Artificial Intelligence Chatbots for Dysphagia Patient Education: A Multi‐Center International Expert Evaluation

Luisa Bertin, Jerome Rene Lechien, Amir Mari, Sílvia Carrión, CP Gyawali, E V Savarino, John Clarke, Ram Dickman, Afrin K. Rahman, Elisa Marabotto, Vincenzo Savarino, Sabine Roman, Frank Zerbib
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients increasingly consult artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots for health information, yet the reliability and accessibility of AI-generated content for complex conditions like dysphagia remain unvalidated. We conducted the first head-to-head comparison of leading large language models for dysphagia patient education, evaluated by an international expert panel. METHODS: Forty-six validated questions across four clinical domains were submitted to ChatGPT-4.0 (OpenAI) and Claude 3.7 (Anthropic) in March 2025. Ten blinded experts from six countries rated responses for scientific accuracy (5-point Likert), clarity (5-point Likert), and misinformation (binary). Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and SMOG Index. Between-model comparisons used Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Cohen's d effect sizes. KEY RESULTS: No significant differences emerged for scientific accuracy (ChatGPT: 3.87 ± 0.36 vs. Claude: 3.93 ± 0.35; p = 0.26; d = 0.16), clarity (4.12 ± 0.34 vs. 4.15 ± 0.27; p = 0.67; d = 0.11), or mean misinformation rates (both 2.15; p = 0.96). Strong inter-model correlation existed for accuracy (rs = 0.678; p < 0.001). Critically, both models produced content far exceeding recommended readability levels: SMOG indices of 14.95 ± 2.40 years (ChatGPT) and 17.37 ± 2.67 years (Claude) required extensive education (p < 0.001; d = 0.95) versus the recommended 6-7 years. Categorical analysis showed Claude generated three times more misinformation-free responses (19.6% vs. 6.5%; p = 0.077). CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Leading AI chatbots demonstrate equivalent, acceptable accuracy for dysphagia information but produce content inaccessible to most patients due to excessive complexity. The strong inter-model correlation suggests shared limitations in medical training data. Before clinical implementation, AI-generated patient education requires mandatory readability optimization to address the substantial health literacy gap identified in this study.

Neurogastroenterology & MotilityVol. 38(5)
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (FR), University of Padua (IT), Bar-Ilan University (IL), Université de Bordeaux (FR), Inserm (FR), Washington University in St. Louis (US), Nazareth Hospital EMMS (IL), Rabin Medical Center (IL), Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ES), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux (FR), Université de Poitiers (FR), Hospices Civils de Lyon (FR), Bordeaux Population Health (FR), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Poitiers (FR), Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (ES), Hospital de Mataró (ES), Ospedale Policlinico San Martino (IT), Azienda Ospedale - Università Padova (IT), University of Genoa (IT), Stanford University (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
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.