Artificial Intelligence-Generated Versus Professional Society Patient Education Materials in Gastroenterology, Surgery, Ophthalmology, and Anesthesiology: A Comparative Analysis of Readability and Health Literacy Metrics

Résumé fourni par la source

AIM: Professional society patient education materials frequently exceed recommended literacy levels, limiting equitable health information access. This study aimed to compare the readability, information quality, understandability, and actionability of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated patient education materials versus professional society materials across gastroenterology, surgery, ophthalmology, and anesthesiology. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional comparative analysis of 100 paired topics (25 per specialty), comparing professional society materials with the responses generated by ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, California, United States) under standardized conditions. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid grade level, information quality with DISCERN, and understandability and actionability with the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Paired two-sided t-tests assessed within-specialty differences. RESULTS: In surgery, AI-generated materials had lower reading levels and higher quality, understandability, and actionability (all p<0.001). In anesthesiology, AI materials were more readable (p<0.001) with no differences in other measures. In ophthalmology, AI improved readability (p<0.001), while professional society materials had higher quality and understandability (p<0.01) with no difference in actionability. In gastroenterology, AI materials had higher reading levels (p<0.001) with no differences in quality or usability. CONCLUSION: The performance of AI-generated patient education materials varied by specialty and appeared to depend on the structure and complexity of clinical content. AI improved readability in several domains, but these gains were not uniform across specialties, particularly in areas requiring more complex or longitudinal explanations.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.