Journal of clinical research in pediatric endocrinology · 2026
A Comparative Assessment of Large Language Models in Congenital Hypothyroidism: Reliability, Quality and Readability.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Barsal Çetiner Ebru, Singin Berna
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To comparatively evaluate the reliability, quality, and readability of responses generated by widely used large language model (LLM)-based chatbots to congenital hypothyroidism (CH)-related patient questions.
METHODS: Forty frequently asked questions (FAQs) about CH, derived from clinician-reviewed patient education resources, were submitted under standardized conditions (December 2025) to Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer-4 (ChatGPT-4), ChatGPT-5.2, Gemini, and Copilot. The modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) instrument was used to assess reliability, whereas the Global Quality Score (GQS) was used to evaluate quality. Readability was evaluated using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). Scores were compared using Friedman tests with Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc analyses.
RESULTS: Median mDISCERN scores were 5.0 for ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-5.2, and Gemini, and 4.0 for Copilot. Median GQS scores were 5.0 for ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-5.2, and Gemini, and 4.0 for Copilot. Differences among models were significant for both mDISCERN and GQS (p<0.001), with ChatGPT-5.2 outperforming others in key pairwise comparisons. Readability differed significantly across all indices (all p<0.001). ChatGPT-5.2 demonstrated the highest FRE and lowest FKGL, whereas Gemini produced the most complex text. However, all models exceeded the recommended sixth-grade reading level.
CONCLUSION: LLM-based chatbots produced generally moderate-to-high quality CH information, but readability remains suboptimal for patient education. ChatGPT-5.2 showed the best overall performance. LLM outputs may support patient information needs but should complement, not replace, clinician-provided counseling.
METHODS: Forty frequently asked questions (FAQs) about CH, derived from clinician-reviewed patient education resources, were submitted under standardized conditions (December 2025) to Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer-4 (ChatGPT-4), ChatGPT-5.2, Gemini, and Copilot. The modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) instrument was used to assess reliability, whereas the Global Quality Score (GQS) was used to evaluate quality. Readability was evaluated using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). Scores were compared using Friedman tests with Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc analyses.
RESULTS: Median mDISCERN scores were 5.0 for ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-5.2, and Gemini, and 4.0 for Copilot. Median GQS scores were 5.0 for ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-5.2, and Gemini, and 4.0 for Copilot. Differences among models were significant for both mDISCERN and GQS (p<0.001), with ChatGPT-5.2 outperforming others in key pairwise comparisons. Readability differed significantly across all indices (all p<0.001). ChatGPT-5.2 demonstrated the highest FRE and lowest FKGL, whereas Gemini produced the most complex text. However, all models exceeded the recommended sixth-grade reading level.
CONCLUSION: LLM-based chatbots produced generally moderate-to-high quality CH information, but readability remains suboptimal for patient education. ChatGPT-5.2 showed the best overall performance. LLM outputs may support patient information needs but should complement, not replace, clinician-provided counseling.