Assessing the suitability of ChatGPT and Google Gemini for patient education on the surgical management of gynaecological malignancies

Priyadarshini Jaishankar; Sharvari Kulkarni; Krishaa Nandini Suresh Babu; Sreya Nimmagadda

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20264008

Authors

Priyadarshini Jaishankar Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Melmaruvathur Adhi Parasakthi Institute of Medical Science and Research, Melmaruvathur, Tamil Nadu, India
Sharvari Kulkarni Maharashtra Institute of Medical Education and Research Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Krishaa Nandini Suresh Babu Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Pilgrim Hospital, Boston, United Lincolnshire Teaching Hospital, United Kingdom
Sreya Nimmagadda NRI Medical College and General Hospital, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20264008

Keywords:

ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Gynaecological malignancies, Patient education, Hysterectomy, Artificial intelligence in healthcare, Total hysterectomy

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based conversational tools like ChatGPT and Google Gemini are increasingly being explored for their potential in patient education. In gynaecological oncology, clear and accessible communication about surgical options such as hysterectomy is vital. This study investigates the effectiveness of these tools in generating patient-friendly educational content. Educational content on total hysterectomy, radical hysterectomy, laparoscopic hysterectomy, abdominal hysterectomy, and supracervical hysterectomy was generated using ChatGPT and Google Gemini. Responses were analysed for word count, sentence structure, grade level, ease score, similarity percentage, and reliability. An independent sample t test was used for comparison. Shapiro-Wilk and Levene’s tests were used to assess normality and variance equality, respectively. The analysis showed no statistically significant differences between ChatGPT and Google Gemini across all assessed metrics (p>0.05). Both tools produced similar content in terms of word count, sentence length, readability (ease score and grade level), and reliability. The average reliability score was slightly higher for Gemini, while ChatGPT showed slightly better readability. Both ChatGPT and Google Gemini demonstrate comparable effectiveness in generating suitable educational content on surgical management of gynaecological malignancies. With appropriate oversight, they can serve as supplementary tools in enhancing patient understanding and shared decision-making in clinical settings.

References

Suneja G, Viswanathan A. Gynecologic malignancies. Hematol/Oncol Clin. 2020;34(1):71-89.

Blair AR, Casas CM. Gynecologic cancers. Primary Care Clin Office Practice. 2009;36(1):115-30.

Fotopoulou C, Kraetschell R, Dowdy S, Fujiwara K, Yaegashi N, Larusso D, et al. Surgical and systemic management of endometrial cancer: an international survey. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291(4):897-905.

Hernandez CA, Gonzalez AE, Polianovskaia A, Sanchez RA, Arce VM, Mustafa A, et al. The future of patient education: AI-driven guide for type 2 diabetes. Cureus. 2023;15(11):e48919.

OpenAI. ChatGPT-Release notes. San Francisco (CA): OpenAI. Available at: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6825453-chatgpt-release-notes. Accessed on 08 August 2026.

Roumeliotis KI, Tselikas ND. Chatgpt and open-ai models: A preliminary review. Future Internet. 2023;15(6):192.

Google DeepMind. Gemini 2.5: Our most intelligent AI model. 2025. Available at: https://deepmind.google/technologies/gemini/. Accessed on 08 August 2026.

Williamson JM, Martin AG. Analysis of patient information leaflets provided by a district general hospital by the Flesch and Flesch-Kincaid method. Int J Clin Pract. 2010;64(13):1824-31.

Good Calculators. Flesch Kincaid Calculator. Good Calculators; 2019. Available at: https://goodcalculators.com/flesch-kincaid-calculator. Accessed on 08 August 2026.

QuillBot. QuillBot AI Writing and Paraphrasing Tool. Chicago (IL): QuillBot. Available at: https://quillbot.com. Accessed on 08 August 2026.

Karnan N, Francis J, Vijayvargiya I, Tan CR, Rubino C. Analyzing the effectiveness of AI-generated patient education materials: A comparative study of ChatGPT and Google Gemini. Cureus. 2024;16(11):1.

Adithya S, Aggarwal S, Sridhar J, Kavya VS, John VP, Singh C. An observational study to evaluate readability and reliability of AI-generated brochures for emergency medical conditions. Cureus. 2024;16(8):10.

Paluszek O, Loeb S. Artificial intelligence and patient education. Curr Opinion Urol. 2025;35(3):219-23.

Shah YB, Ghosh A, Hochberg A, Mark JR, Lallas CD, Shah MS. Artificial intelligence improves urologic oncology patient education and counseling. Can J Urol. 2024;31(5):12013-8.

Kirchner GJ, Kim RY, Weddle JB, Bible JE. Can artificial intelligence improve the readability of patient education materials? Clin Orthopaed Related Res. 2023;481(11):2260-7.

Didier AJ, Moss G, Sutton JM. Applications of artificial intelligence for cancer patient education. J Cancer Educat. 2025;40(3):313-4.

Zeng S, Kong Q, Wu X, Ma T, Wang L, Xu L, et al. Artificial Intelligence‐Generated Patient Education Materials for Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Comparative Analysis. Helicobacter. 2024;29(4):e13115.

Yüceler Kaçmaz H, Kahraman H, Akutay S, Dağdelen D. Development and validation of an artificial intelligence–assisted patient education material for ostomy patients: a methodological study. J Adv Nursing. 2025;81(7):3859-67.

Min SK. Plagiarism in medical scientific research: can continuing education and alarming prevent this misconduct? Vascular Specialist Int. 2020;36(2):53.

Karnan N, Francis J, Vijayvargiya I, Tan CR, Rubino C. Analyzing the effectiveness of AI-generated patient education materials: A comparative study of ChatGPT and Google Gemini. Cureus. 2024;16(11):1.

Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2019;53(2):105-11.

Varsaale N, George CR, Gunturi LM, Saravanan H, Menon GA. A cross-sectional study comparing patient education guides created by ChatGPT and Google Gemini for common cardiovascular-related conditions. Cureus. 2025;17(1):1.

Arora S, Ramesh M, Moe AT, Giri T, Parrikh K, Challa HV. Evaluating artificial intelligence (AI)-generated patient education guides on epilepsy: a cross-sectional study of ChatGPT and Google Gemini. Cureus. 2024;16(11):e73212.