Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Lewy body dementia

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Large language models such as ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Gemini are increasingly used to generate patient-facing medical content. While their factual accuracy has been explored, the readability of these outputs remains less well understood. Readability is a crucial component of health communication, particularly for older adults and those with lower health literacy. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the readability of patient information leaflets generated by three large language models - ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Gemini - on the topics of Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, and delirium, using five validated readability metrics. Materials and methods We conducted a cross-sectional comparative study of patient information leaflets generated by three large language models on the topics of Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, and delirium. Each model was prompted using identical queries, and the resulting texts were evaluated using five established readability metrics: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, and Automated Readability Index. Readability scores were compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests to identify statistically significant differences between models. Results ChatGPT consistently produced the most readable content, with the highest Flesch Reading Ease scores and the lowest grade-level indices. DeepSeek generated text that was markedly more complex and less accessible. Gemini performed intermediately, sometimes matching ChatGPT in specific indices but not consistently across all metrics. The difference in Flesch Reading Ease scores between models was statistically significant (H = 7.20, p = 0.027). Other metrics showed trends that approached significance. Conclusions There are meaningful differences in the readability of patient information generated by different large language models. ChatGPT appears to produce content that is more suitable for patient understanding, particularly in the context of older adult care. These findings highlight the need for careful evaluation of readability when using generative AI in clinical communication. Future research should incorporate expert review of content accuracy and appropriateness alongside readability.

Key findings

Why it matters

This study compared the readability of patient information leaflets on Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia and delirium generated by three large language models, finding ChatGPT produced the most readable content. It concerns health communication quality and does not test any treatment, cure or prevention.

Study details

How this study scored 41/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 1 of 4; Study design 4 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 2 of 7; Citations per year 1 of 5; Impact for its field and year 2 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 1 of 4; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record 0 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 39 of the 96 points it could be judged on, which is 41 of 100. Total 41 of 100.39 of the 96 points we could judge = 41 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 39 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Cureus)
Journal's citation record 1 / 4 Cureus: journal h-index 131 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 4 / 12 A snapshot of people at one point in time
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 4 / 5 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 2 / 7 Cited 6 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 1 / 5 2.0 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year 2 / 6 Cited 1.3× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited 1 / 4 Cited 6 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record 0 / 3 Queen Elizabeth University Hospital: institution h-index 239 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 2 / 3 OpenAlex lists 4 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40621318)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 39 / 96 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100.
Total 41 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Jido, J. T., Al-Wizni, A., & Aung, S. N. (2025). Readability of AI-Generated Patient Information Leaflets on Alzheimer’s, Vascular Dementia, and Delirium. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.85463

Vancouver

Jido JT, Al-Wizni A, Aung SN. Readability of AI-Generated Patient Information Leaflets on Alzheimer’s, Vascular Dementia, and Delirium. Cureus. 2025. doi:10.7759/cureus.85463. PMID: 40621318.

BibTeX

@article{jido2025-40621318,
  author  = {Jido, Jamila Tukur and Al-Wizni, Ahmed and Aung, Su Nandar},
  title   = {{Readability of AI-Generated Patient Information Leaflets on Alzheimer’s, Vascular Dementia, and Delirium}},
  journal = {Cureus},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.7759/cureus.85463},
  pmid    = {40621318},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.85463}
}

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Related studies in Lewy body dementia

Also tagged “classification”

835 studies in the library carry the topic tag “classification”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 835 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Lewy body dementia

See all studies in Lewy body dementia →