Evaluation shows AI chatbots provide accurate dysphagia education in patients, but highlight significant health literacy issues.
BACKGROUND: Patients increasingly consult artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots for health information, yet the reliability and accessibility of AI-generated content for complex conditions like dysphagia remain unvalidated. We conducted the first head-to-head comparison of leading large language models for dysphagia patient education, evaluated by an international expert panel. METHODS: Forty-six validated questions across four clinical domains were submitted to ChatGPT-4.0 (OpenAI) and Claude 3.7 (Anthropic) in March 2025. Ten blinded experts from six countries rated responses for scientific accuracy (5-point Likert), clarity (5-point Likert), and misinformation (binary). Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and SMOG Index. Between-model comparisons used Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Cohen's d effect sizes. KEY RESULTS: No significant differences emerged for scientific accuracy (ChatGPT: 3.87 ± 0.36 vs. Claude: 3.93 ± 0.35; p = 0.26; d = 0.16), clarity (4.12 ± 0.34 vs. 4.15 ± 0.27; p = 0.67; d = 0.11), or mean misinformation rates (both 2.15; p = 0.96). Strong inter-model correlation existed for accuracy (rs = 0.678; p < 0.001). Critically, both models produced content far exceeding recommended readability levels: SMOG indices of 14.95 ± 2.40 years (ChatGPT) and 17.37 ± 2.67 years (Claude) required extensive education (p < 0.001; d = 0.95) versus the recommended 6-7 years. Categorical analysis showed Claude generated three times more misinformation-free responses (19.6% vs. 6.5%; p = 0.077). CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Leading AI chatbots demonstrate equivalent, acceptable accuracy for dysphagia information but produce content inaccessible to most patients due to excessive complexity. The strong inter-model correlation suggests shared limitations in medical training data. Before clinical implementation, AI-generated patient education requires mandatory readability optimization to address the substantial health literacy gap identified in this study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bertin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: