Are AI chatbots ready for chikungunya public education? Evidence on validity, reliability, and readability

BACKGROUND: Chikungunya continues to expand geographically, driving demand for trustworthy, easy-to-read public guidance. Conversational AI systems are increasingly used for health information, yet their medical validity, reliability, and readability remain uneven. METHODS: We evaluated four widely used chatbots (ChatGPT, Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini) on two task sets: (1) validity on a 50-item single-answer MCQ dataset about Chikungunya; and (2) reliability and readability on 13 core public-education questions derived from Google Trends "topics" and clinician. Reliability was scored with DISCERN, EQIP, GQS, and JAMA benchmarks by clinician raters; readability used ARI, CL, FKGL, FRES, GFI, and SMOG. RESULTS: Across three independent runs, Deepseek-V3.2 achieved the highest MCQ accuracy (86.7%); other models ranged near 72-78% accuracy. In paired brand-line comparisons, newer iterations outperformed predecessors: ChatGPT-5 vs. ChatGPT-4o showed a 5.3-percentage-point gain, and Deepseek-V3.2 vs. Deepseek-R1 showed an 8.7-point gain in accuracy. Reliability (DISCERN, EQIP, GQS, and JAMA) differed significantly across models (p < 0.05). Pairwise tests favored Deepseek-V3.2 on most instruments, though absolute JAMA scores were low for all systems, indicating limited transparency signals. Readability (ARI, CL, FKGL, FRES, GFI, and SMOG) also differed significantly (p < 0.05). Deepseek-V3.2 produced the easiest text on average, Gemini the most complex, and no model met the sixth-grade benchmark. CONCLUSION: Under the benchmark conditions of this study, newer chatbot iterations showed higher factual performance, and DeepSeek-V3.2 achieved the strongest task-specific answer-quality metrics. However, these findings should not be interpreted as evidence of readiness for public-health deployment or as an endorsement of any platform. Transparency remained limited, readability exceeded recommended public-facing levels, and platform-level concerns (including privacy, data governance, content moderation, and sociopolitical acceptability) remain essential considerations. Chatbots should therefore be treated as supervised adjuncts to, not substitutes for, authoritative public-health communication.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Public Health
Published
2026-05-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-026-27713-6
Primary Topic
AI in Service Interactions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Are AI chatbots ready for chikungunya public education? Evidence on validity, reliability, and readability

Jiadong Zhao, Anguo Zhao, Qi Zhuang, Rongkang Li et al.
BMC Public Health
AI in Service Interactions
article

Are AI chatbots ready for chikungunya public education? Evidence on validity, reliability, and readability

Jiadong Zhao, Anguo Zhao, Qi Zhuang, Rongkang Li, Yang Liu, Lei Peng, Rui Liang
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chikungunya continues to expand geographically, driving demand for trustworthy, easy-to-read public guidance. Conversational AI systems are increasingly used for health information, yet their medical validity, reliability, and readability remain uneven. METHODS: We evaluated four widely used chatbots (ChatGPT, Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini) on two task sets: (1) validity on a 50-item single-answer MCQ dataset about Chikungunya; and (2) reliability and readability on 13 core public-education questions derived from Google Trends "topics" and clinician. Reliability was scored with DISCERN, EQIP, GQS, and JAMA benchmarks by clinician raters; readability used ARI, CL, FKGL, FRES, GFI, and SMOG. RESULTS: Across three independent runs, Deepseek-V3.2 achieved the highest MCQ accuracy (86.7%); other models ranged near 72-78% accuracy. In paired brand-line comparisons, newer iterations outperformed predecessors: ChatGPT-5 vs. ChatGPT-4o showed a 5.3-percentage-point gain, and Deepseek-V3.2 vs. Deepseek-R1 showed an 8.7-point gain in accuracy. Reliability (DISCERN, EQIP, GQS, and JAMA) differed significantly across models (p < 0.05). Pairwise tests favored Deepseek-V3.2 on most instruments, though absolute JAMA scores were low for all systems, indicating limited transparency signals. Readability (ARI, CL, FKGL, FRES, GFI, and SMOG) also differed significantly (p < 0.05). Deepseek-V3.2 produced the easiest text on average, Gemini the most complex, and no model met the sixth-grade benchmark. CONCLUSION: Under the benchmark conditions of this study, newer chatbot iterations showed higher factual performance, and DeepSeek-V3.2 achieved the strongest task-specific answer-quality metrics. However, these findings should not be interpreted as evidence of readiness for public-health deployment or as an endorsement of any platform. Transparency remained limited, readability exceeded recommended public-facing levels, and platform-level concerns (including privacy, data governance, content moderation, and sociopolitical acceptability) remain essential considerations. Chatbots should therefore be treated as supervised adjuncts to, not substitutes for, authoritative public-health communication.

BMC Public Health
Shantou University (CN), Shantou University Medical College (CN), Peng Cheng Laboratory (CN), Southern Medical University Shenzhen Hospital (CN), Shenzhen University Health Science Center (CN), Shenzhen Pingle Orthopedic Hospital (CN)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
AI in Service Interactions
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.