Artificial intelligence compared with human-derived patient educational materials on cirrhosis

Background: The study compared the readability, grade level, understandability, actionability, and accuracy of standard patient educational material against artificial intelligence chatbot-derived patient educational material regarding cirrhosis. Methods: An identical standardized phrase was used to generate patient educational materials on cirrhosis from 4 large language model-derived chatbots (ChatGPT, DocsGPT, Google Bard, and Bing Chat), and the outputs were compared against a pre-existing human-derived educational material (Epic). Objective scores for readability and grade level were determined using Flesch-Kincaid and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook scoring systems. 14 patients/caregivers and 8 transplant hepatologists were blinded and independently scored the materials on understandability and actionability and indicated whether they believed the material was human or artificial intelligence-generated. Understandability and actionability were determined using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials. Transplant hepatologists also provided medical accuracy scores. Results: Most educational materials scored similarly in readability and grade level but were above the desired sixth-grade reading level. All educational materials were deemed understandable by both groups, while only the human-derived educational material (Epic) was considered actionable by both groups. No significant difference in perceived actionability or understandability among the educational materials was identified. Both groups poorly identified which materials were human-derived versus artificial intelligence-derived. Conclusions: Chatbot-derived patient educational materials have comparable readability, grade level, understandability, and accuracy to human-derived materials. Readability, grade level, and actionability may be appropriate targets for improvement across educational materials on cirrhosis. Chatbot-derived patient educational materials show promise, and further studies should assess their usefulness in clinical practice.