Readability and Information Quality in Cancer Information From a Free vs Paid Chatbot.

Importance: The mainstream use of chatbots requires a thorough investigation of their readability and quality of information. Objective: To identify readability and quality differences in information between a free and paywalled chatbot cancer-related responses, and to explore if more precise prompting can mitigate any observed differences. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study compared readability and information quality of a chatbot's free vs paywalled responses with Google Trends' top 5 search queries associated with breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, and skin cancers from January 1, 2021, to January 1, 2023. Data were extracted from the search tracker, and responses were produced by free and paywalled ChatGPT. Data were analyzed from December 20, 2023, to January 15, 2024. Exposures: Free vs paywalled chatbot outputs with and without prompt: "Explain the following at a sixth grade reading level: [nonprompted input]." Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measured the readability of a chatbot's responses using Flesch Reading Ease scores (0 [graduate reading level] to 100 [easy fifth grade reading level]). Secondary outcomes included assessing consumer health information quality with the validated DISCERN instrument (overall score from 1 [low quality] to 5 [high quality]) for each response. Scores were compared between the 2 chatbot models with and without prompting. Results: This study evaluated 100 chatbot responses. Nonprompted free chatbot responses had lower readability (median [IQR] Flesh Reading ease scores, 52.60 [44.54-61.46]) than nonprompted paywalled chatbot responses (62.48 [54.83-68.40]) (P < .05). However, prompting the free chatbot to reword responses at a sixth grade reading level was associated with increased reading ease scores than the paywalled chatbot nonprompted responses (median [IQR], 71.55 [68.20-78.99]) (P < .001). Prompting was associated with increases in reading ease in both free (median [IQR], 71.55 [68.20-78.99]; P < .001)and paywalled versions (median [IQR], 75.64 [70.53-81.12]; P < .001). There was no significant difference in overall DISCERN scores between the chatbot models, with and without prompting. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, paying for the chatbot was found to provide easier-to-read responses, but prompting the free version of the chatbot was associated with increased response readability without changing information quality. Educating the public on how to prompt chatbots may help promote equitable access to health information.

Quality of Information About Kidney Stones from Artificial Intelligence Chatbots.

Introduction: Kidney stones are common and morbid conditions in the general population with a rising incidence globally. Previous studies show substantial limitations of online sources of information regarding prevention and treatment. The objective of this study was to examine the quality of information on kidney stones from artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots. Methods: The most common online searches about kidney stones from Google Trends and headers from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases website were used as inputs to four AI chatbots (ChatGPT version 3.5, Perplexity, Chat Sonic, and Bing AI). Validated instruments were used to assess the quality (DISCERN instrument from 1 low to 5 high), understandability, and actionability (PEMAT, from 0% to 100%) of the chatbot outputs. In addition, we examined the reading level of the information and whether there was misinformation compared with guidelines (5 point Likert scale). Results: AI chatbots generally provided high-quality consumer health information (median DISCERN 4 out of 5) and did not include misinformation (median 1 out of 5). The median understandability was moderate (median 69.6%), and actionability was moderate to poor (median 40%). Responses were presented at an advanced reading level (11th grade; median Flesch-Kincaid score 11.3). Conclusions: AI chatbots provide generally accurate information on kidney stones and lack misinformation; however, it is not easily actionable and is presented above the recommended reading level for consumer health information.

Potential clinical applications of current and future oral forms of desmopressin (Review).

Desmopressin is a synthetic analogue of vasopressin and a selective vasopressin receptor 2 agonist. It was first synthesised in 1967 and utilised for its antidiuretic properties. It is also used in bleeding disorders to enhance clotting. Other potential uses of the drug have been reported. The present review aims to provide a broad overview of the literature on potential further uses of oral forms of desmopressin. Key therapeutic areas of interest were identified based on known physiological activities/targets of desmopressin or reports of an effect of desmopressin in the literature. The feasibility of adequate dosing with oral forms of the drug was also considered. Systematic literature searches were carried out using the silvi.ai software for the identified areas, and summaries of available papers were included in tables and discussed. The results of the searches showed that desmopressin has been investigated for its efficacy in a number of areas, including bleeding control, renal colic, the central nervous system and oncology. Evidence suggests that oral desmopressin may have the potential to be of clinical benefit for renal colic and bleeding control in particular. However, further research is needed to clarify its effect in these areas, including randomised controlled studies and studies specifically of oral formulations (and doses). Further research may also yield findings for cancer, cognition and overactive bladder.