Evaluating AI-generated patient education materials for spinal surgeries: Comparative analysis of readability and DISCERN quality across ChatGPT and deepseek models

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS International Journal of Medical Informatics Pub Date : 2025-03-13 DOI:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2025.105871
Mi Zhou , Yun Pan , Yuye Zhang , Xiaomei Song , Youbin Zhou
{"title":"Evaluating AI-generated patient education materials for spinal surgeries: Comparative analysis of readability and DISCERN quality across ChatGPT and deepseek models","authors":"Mi Zhou ,&nbsp;Yun Pan ,&nbsp;Yuye Zhang ,&nbsp;Xiaomei Song ,&nbsp;Youbin Zhou","doi":"10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2025.105871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Access to patient-centered health information is essential for informed decision-making. However, online medical resources vary in quality and often fail to accommodate differing degrees of health literacy. This issue is particularly evident in surgical contexts, where complex terminology obstructs patient comprehension. With the increasing reliance on AI models for supplementary medical information, the reliability and readability of AI-generated content require thorough evaluation.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study aimed to evaluate four natural language processing models—ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-o3 mini, DeepSeek-V3, and DeepSeek-R1—in generating patient education materials for three common spinal surgeries: lumbar discectomy, spinal fusion, and decompressive laminectomy. Information quality was evaluated using the DISCERN score, and readability was assessed through Flesch-Kincaid indices.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>DeepSeek-R1 produced the most readable responses, with Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) scores ranging from 7.2 to 9.0, succeeded by ChatGPT-4o. In contrast, ChatGPT-o3 exhibited the lowest readability (FKGL &gt; 10.4). The DISCERN scores for all AI models were below 60, classifying the information quality as “fair,” primarily due to insufficient cited references.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>All models achieved merely a “fair” quality rating, underscoring the necessity for improvements in citation practices, and personalization. Nonetheless, DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT-4o generated more readable surgical information than ChatGPT-o3. Given that enhanced readability can improve patient engagement, reduce anxiety, and contribute to better surgical outcomes, these two models should be prioritized for assisting patients in the clinical.</div></div><div><h3>Limitation &amp; Future direction</h3><div>This study is limited by the rapid evolution of AI models, its exclusive focus on spinal surgery education, and the absence of real-world patient feedback, which may affect the generalizability and long-term applicability of the findings. Future research ought to explore interactive, multimodal approaches and incorporate patient feedback to ensure that AI-generated health information is accurate, accessible, and facilitates informed healthcare decisions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54950,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Informatics","volume":"198 ","pages":"Article 105871"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505625000887","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Access to patient-centered health information is essential for informed decision-making. However, online medical resources vary in quality and often fail to accommodate differing degrees of health literacy. This issue is particularly evident in surgical contexts, where complex terminology obstructs patient comprehension. With the increasing reliance on AI models for supplementary medical information, the reliability and readability of AI-generated content require thorough evaluation.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate four natural language processing models—ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-o3 mini, DeepSeek-V3, and DeepSeek-R1—in generating patient education materials for three common spinal surgeries: lumbar discectomy, spinal fusion, and decompressive laminectomy. Information quality was evaluated using the DISCERN score, and readability was assessed through Flesch-Kincaid indices.

Results

DeepSeek-R1 produced the most readable responses, with Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) scores ranging from 7.2 to 9.0, succeeded by ChatGPT-4o. In contrast, ChatGPT-o3 exhibited the lowest readability (FKGL > 10.4). The DISCERN scores for all AI models were below 60, classifying the information quality as “fair,” primarily due to insufficient cited references.

Conclusion

All models achieved merely a “fair” quality rating, underscoring the necessity for improvements in citation practices, and personalization. Nonetheless, DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT-4o generated more readable surgical information than ChatGPT-o3. Given that enhanced readability can improve patient engagement, reduce anxiety, and contribute to better surgical outcomes, these two models should be prioritized for assisting patients in the clinical.

Limitation & Future direction

This study is limited by the rapid evolution of AI models, its exclusive focus on spinal surgery education, and the absence of real-world patient feedback, which may affect the generalizability and long-term applicability of the findings. Future research ought to explore interactive, multimodal approaches and incorporate patient feedback to ensure that AI-generated health information is accurate, accessible, and facilitates informed healthcare decisions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Medical Informatics
International Journal of Medical Informatics 医学-计算机:信息系统
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
4.10%
发文量
217
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: International Journal of Medical Informatics provides an international medium for dissemination of original results and interpretative reviews concerning the field of medical informatics. The Journal emphasizes the evaluation of systems in healthcare settings. The scope of journal covers: Information systems, including national or international registration systems, hospital information systems, departmental and/or physician''s office systems, document handling systems, electronic medical record systems, standardization, systems integration etc.; Computer-aided medical decision support systems using heuristic, algorithmic and/or statistical methods as exemplified in decision theory, protocol development, artificial intelligence, etc. Educational computer based programs pertaining to medical informatics or medicine in general; Organizational, economic, social, clinical impact, ethical and cost-benefit aspects of IT applications in health care.
期刊最新文献
Online professionalism through the lens of medical students and residents: A focus group study Evaluating AI-generated patient education materials for spinal surgeries: Comparative analysis of readability and DISCERN quality across ChatGPT and deepseek models AI-based personalized real-time risk prediction for behavioral management in psychiatric wards using multimodal data Impact of patients’ personality traits on digital health Adoption Strategies for family practices Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model for predicting in-hospital mortality for ischemic stroke patients in ICU
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1