Key result
ChatGPT and Google Gemini provide comparable quality in explaining atrial fibrillation.
Why the study?
Atrial fibrillation is a major stroke risk factor making patient education critical, while AI platforms like ChatGPT and Google Gemini are emerging tools for medical education whose explanation quality required assessment.
Does ChatGPT provide better quality explanations of atrial fibrillation and its treatment compared to Google Gemini?
Cross-Sectional (n=28)
Does ChatGPT provide better quality explanations of atrial fibrillation and its treatment compared to Google Gemini?
ChatGPT and Google Gemini provide comparable quality explanations for atrial fibrillation education, though differences in perception between cardiologists and non-medical professionals highlight the need for clearer patient-facing AI tools.
Comparable AI explanations for AF show rater-dependent bias perceptions; leaves open validation of patient-facing tools.
BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation (AF), a common arrhythmia, is a major stroke risk factor, making patient education critical. Artificial intelligence (AI) platforms like Google Gemini and ChatGPT are emerging tools for medical education. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to (1) assess the quality of ChatGPT and Google Gemini’s explanations of AF and its treatment, (2) compare responses from both platforms and (3) analyze differences in interpretation between cardiologists and non-medical professionals. METHODS On September 6, 2024, the prompt “Explain atrial fibrillation and how to treat it to a patient” was entered into ChatGPT and Google Gemini. A survey based on PEMAT-P and DISCERN criteria was completed by 11 cardiologists and 17 non-medical professionals. Averages and standard deviations were calculated and compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS No significant quality difference was observed between ChatGPT and Google Gemini. Cardiologists rated bias lower (3.82 vs. 4.33, p=0.04) and explanations of consequences of no treatment higher (2.85 vs. 1.86, p=0.005) compared to non-medical professionals. Visual cues, informative headers, concise sections, actionable advice, and direct addressing of the reader received significantly higher ratings from cardiologists. CONCLUSIONS The comparable quality of ChatGPT and Google Gemini suggests that both are viable for AF education. Cardiologists’ higher ratings for critical aspects of explanation highlight a gap in patient understanding, underscoring the need for clearer AI-driven educational tools. CLINICALTRIAL n/a
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kahlam et al. (2025) conducted a cross-sectional in Atrial fibrillation (n=28). ChatGPT vs. Google Gemini was evaluated on Quality of explanations based on PEMAT-P and DISCERN criteria. ChatGPT and Google Gemini provided comparable quality in explaining atrial fibrillation, though cardiologists rated bias lower (3.82 vs. 4.33, p=0.04) compared to non-medical professionals.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: