Scholarlink

Background <p>Patients increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) for health information, yet the accuracy and readability of AI-generated dental advice remain variable across different clinical domains and Artificial Intelligence (AI) models. This study therefore aimed to compare the readability, accuracy, and comprehensiveness of responses generated by four leading AI models (ChatGPT-4o Mini, ChatGPT-5, Google Gemini 2.5 Flash, and DeepSeek V3) to patient questions on functional appliances.</p> Methods <p>Thirty-eight frequently asked questions were identified using a structured Google search and categorized into three domains: “treatment fundamentals and general information,” “lifestyle and practical concerns,” and “appointments and long-term results”. Each question was independently answered by the four AI models. Readability was assessed using the Flesch–Kincaid tools. Accuracy and comprehensiveness were independently rated by two blinded orthodontists.</p> Results <p>AI-generated responses were generally accurate and comprehensive but difficult to read, requiring college-level literacy. ChatGPT-5 produced the lowest readability scores (most difficult-to-read responses; <i>P</i> &lt; .001). Although Gemini 2.5 Flash achieved the highest comprehensiveness scores across all three domains, these differences were not statistically significant. Treatment-related questions yielded lower readability scores than lifestyle-related queries across all models (<i>P</i> &lt; .001). No single model demonstrated superior performance across all evaluated domains.</p> Conclusion <p>AI-generated information on functional appliances was generally accurate and comprehensive but often exceeded recommended patient literacy thresholds. Readability must be considered alongside informational quality when deploying AI tools for patient education.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Accuracy, readability, and content coverage of AI-generated responses to questions on functional appliances

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月22日

查看全文
  • Serene A. Badran,
  • Snigdha Pattanaik,
  • Sarah Jumaah,
  • Abdulrahman Salmeh,
  • Meena Al-Saadi,
  • Taiba Al-Mizban,
  • Nadia Al-Zaidi,
  • Abdullah Hanifa,
  • Mahmoud K. AL-Omiri

摘要

Background

Patients increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) for health information, yet the accuracy and readability of AI-generated dental advice remain variable across different clinical domains and Artificial Intelligence (AI) models. This study therefore aimed to compare the readability, accuracy, and comprehensiveness of responses generated by four leading AI models (ChatGPT-4o Mini, ChatGPT-5, Google Gemini 2.5 Flash, and DeepSeek V3) to patient questions on functional appliances.

Methods

Thirty-eight frequently asked questions were identified using a structured Google search and categorized into three domains: “treatment fundamentals and general information,” “lifestyle and practical concerns,” and “appointments and long-term results”. Each question was independently answered by the four AI models. Readability was assessed using the Flesch–Kincaid tools. Accuracy and comprehensiveness were independently rated by two blinded orthodontists.

Results

AI-generated responses were generally accurate and comprehensive but difficult to read, requiring college-level literacy. ChatGPT-5 produced the lowest readability scores (most difficult-to-read responses; P < .001). Although Gemini 2.5 Flash achieved the highest comprehensiveness scores across all three domains, these differences were not statistically significant. Treatment-related questions yielded lower readability scores than lifestyle-related queries across all models (P < .001). No single model demonstrated superior performance across all evaluated domains.

Conclusion

AI-generated information on functional appliances was generally accurate and comprehensive but often exceeded recommended patient literacy thresholds. Readability must be considered alongside informational quality when deploying AI tools for patient education.