Cross-sectional analysis reveals AI-generated content is harder to read for pediatric otolaryngology, suggesting improved clarity is needed.
Objective This study evaluates and compares the readability of pediatric otolaryngology patient education materials generated by ChatGPT4o and those retrieved from Google searches. The goal is to determine whether artificial intelligence (AI)‐generated content improves accessibility compared to institutionally affiliated online resources. Study Design Cross‐sectional readability analysis. Setting Online educational materials focused on pediatric otolaryngology topics. Methods Educational articles covering 10 pediatric otolaryngology conditions were sourced either via Google search or generated using ChatGPT4o. All texts were standardized by removing extraneous formatting. Readability was assessed using six validated metrics: Flesch‐Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Gunning‐Fog Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Coleman‐Liau Index, and Automated Readability Index (ARI). Statistical comparisons were performed using paired t tests or Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests to evaluate differences in scores between sources. Results ChatGPT4o‐generated content demonstrated significantly higher FKGL, Gunning‐Fog, ARI, and SMOG scores and lower FRES scores compared to Google‐sourced materials, indicating greater complexity ( P < .05). These differences were most pronounced for simpler conditions such as allergic rhinitis and otitis externa. For more complex topics like laryngomalacia and cleft lip and palate, readability scores were not significantly different between the two sources ( P > .05). Conclusion ChatGPT4o‐generated patient education materials are generally more difficult to read than Google‐sourced content, especially for less complex conditions. Given the importance of readability in patient education, AI‐generated materials may require further refinement to improve accessibility without compromising accuracy. Enhancing clarity could increase the utility of AI tools for educating parents and caregivers in pediatric otolaryngology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carnino et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: