Patients prefer ChatGPT to institutional websites for questions on radiation-based imaging exams: international mixed-methods study

dc.contributor.author

Jankowski, Sofyan

dc.contributor.author

Mourad, Charbel

dc.contributor.author

Nowak, Marie

dc.contributor.author

Richiardi, Jonas

dc.contributor.author

Brito Rodriguez, Wendy

dc.contributor.author

Poncet, Florian

dc.contributor.author

Gulizia, Marianna

dc.contributor.author

de Labouchere, Stephanie

dc.contributor.author

Harkness, Emily

dc.contributor.author

Rotzinger, David

dc.contributor.author

Ria, Francesco

dc.contributor.author

Pozzessere, Chiara

dc.date.accessioned

2026-09-01T21:45:40Z

dc.date.available

2026-09-01T21:45:40Z

dc.date.issued

2026-07-07

dc.description.abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Background</jats:title> <jats:p>Radiology-risk communication affects multiple clinical specialties that use ionizing radiation, and many patients seek related information online. Prior expert evaluations found comparable performance between ChatGPT-generated and radiology-risk answers from official institutions, but patient perspectives have not been assessed.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Purpose</jats:title> <jats:p>To assess patients’ perceptions of ChatGPT versus human-generated radiology-risk information.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Methods and Materials</jats:title> <jats:p>From December 2024 to March 2025, patients at 3 hospitals in the United States, Switzerland, and Lebanon were randomly assigned to 1 of 5 common radiology-risk questions. Participants, blinded to source, provided subjective ratings of both ChatGPT‑3.5 and human-generated institutional responses on 7-point Likert scales for satisfaction (primary outcome), comprehensibility, trust, and reassurance. Quantitative comparisons were performed with Inverse Normalizing Transformation, and free-text comments were analyzed using thematic coding.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>A total of 328 patients participated (34% aged 18-39 years, 33% aged 40-59 years, 31% aged 60-79 years, 3% aged ≥80 years; 188 female). ChatGPT responses were rated significantly higher than human responses for satisfaction (0.70-point advantage; P &lt; .001), comprehensibility (0.27 points; P &lt; .01), trust (0.65 points; P &lt; .001), and reassurance (0.51 points; P &lt; .001). Findings converged with qualitative written comments (r = 0.91, P &lt; .05), in which ChatGPT attracted 2.3× more positive comments while human-generated responses received 1.7× more negative comments.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title> <jats:p>Unlike experts, patients preferred ChatGPT-generated responses to institutional materials for radiology risk questions. This divergence highlights the need for patient-centered communication and suggests that large language model-based styles, implemented with expert oversight, may improve the perceived clarity and trustworthiness of educational materials in medical specialties that use ionizing radiation.</jats:p> </jats:sec>

dc.identifier.issn

2976-9337

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/35548

dc.language

en

dc.publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

dc.relation.ispartof

Radiology Advances

dc.relation.isversionof

10.1093/radadv/umag033

dc.rights.uri

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0

dc.title

Patients prefer ChatGPT to institutional websites for questions on radiation-based imaging exams: international mixed-methods study

dc.type

Journal article

duke.contributor.orcid

Ria, Francesco|0000-0001-5902-7396

pubs.issue

4

pubs.organisational-group

Duke

pubs.organisational-group

School of Medicine

pubs.organisational-group

Clinical Science Departments

pubs.organisational-group

Radiology

pubs.publication-status

Published

pubs.volume

3

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
ChatGPT_vs_humans_in_patients_jankowski_et_al_2026_Rad_Advances.pdf
Size:
1.56 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version