Is Information About Musculoskeletal Malignancies From Large Language Models or Web Resources at a Suitable Reading Level for Patients?

Background: Patients and caregivers may experience immense distress when receiving the diagnosis of a primary musculoskeletal malignancy and subsequently turn to internet resources for more information. It is not clear whether these resources, including Google and ChatGPT, offer patients information that is readable, a measure of how easy text is to understand. Since many patients turn to Google and artificial intelligence resources for healthcare information, we thought it was important to ascertain whether the information they find is readable and easy to understand. The objective of this study was to compare readability of Google search results and ChatGPT answers to frequently asked questions and assess whether these sources meet NIH recommendations for readability.

Questions/purposes: (1) What is the readability of ChatGPT-3.5 as a source of patient information for the three most common primary bone malignancies compared with top online resources from Google search? (2) Do ChatGPT-3.5 responses and online resources meet NIH readability guidelines for patient education materials?

Methods: This was a cross-sectional analysis of the 12 most common online questions about osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, and Ewing sarcoma. To be consistent with other studies of similar design that utilized national society frequently asked questions lists, questions were selected from the American Cancer Society and categorized based on content, including diagnosis, treatment, and recovery and prognosis. Google was queried using all 36 questions, and top responses were recorded. Author types, such as hospital systems, national health organizations, or independent researchers, were recorded. ChatGPT-3.5 was provided each question in independent queries without further prompting. Responses were assessed with validated reading indices to determine readability by grade level. An independent t-test was performed with significance set at p < 0.05.

Results: Google (n = 36) and ChatGPT-3.5 (n = 36) answers were recorded, 12 for each of the three cancer types. Reading grade levels based on mean readability scores were 11.0 ± 2.9 and 16.1 ± 3.6, respectively. This corresponds to the eleventh grade reading level for Google and a fourth-year undergraduate student level for ChatGPT-3.5. Google answers were more readable across all individual indices, without differences in word count. No difference in readability was present across author type, question category, or cancer type. Of 72 total responses across both search modalities, none met NIH readability criteria at the sixth-grade level.

Conclusion: Google material was presented at a high school reading level, whereas ChatGPT-3.5 was at an undergraduate reading level. The readability of both resources was inadequate based on NIH recommendations. Improving readability is crucial for better patient understanding during cancer treatment. Physicians should assess patients' needs, offer them tailored materials, and guide them to reliable resources to prevent reliance on online information that is hard to understand.

Level Of Evidence: Level III, prognostic study.