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 < .001), comprehensibility (0.27 points; P < .01), trust (0.65 points; P < .001), and reassurance (0.51 points; P < .001). Findings converged with qualitative written comments (r = 0.91, P < .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 | ||
| dc.language | en | |
| dc.publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Radiology Advances | |
| dc.relation.isversionof | 10.1093/radadv/umag033 | |
| dc.rights.uri | ||
| 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
- 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