MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407584243 · doi:10.1002/lio2.70101

Readability of Hospital Online Patient Education Materials Across Otolaryngology Specialties

2025· article· en· W4407584243 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Akshay Warrier, Rohan Bir Singh, Afash Haleem, Andrew Lee, David Mothy, Aakash Patel, Jean Anderson Eloy, Brian Manzi

Bibliographic record

VenueLaryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReadabilityOtorhinolaryngologyMedicineSubspecialtyIndex (typography)Family medicineRhinologySurgeryComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: This study evaluates the readability of online patient education materials (OPEMs) across otolaryngology subspecialties, hospital characteristics, and national otolaryngology organizations, while assessing AI alternatives. Methods: Hospitals from the US News Best ENT list were queried for OPEMs describing a chosen surgery per subspecialty; the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO), American Laryngological Association (ALA), Ear, Nose, and Throat United Kingdom (ENTUK), and the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (CSOHNS) were similarly queried. Google was queried for the top 10 links from hospitals per procedure. Ownership (private/public), presence of respective otolaryngology fellowships, region, and median household income (zip code) were collected. Readability was assessed using seven indices and averaged: Automated Readability Index (ARI), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Readability (GFR), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Coleman-Liau Readability Index (CLRI), and Linsear Write Readability Formula (LWRF). AI-generated materials from ChatGPT were compared for readability, accuracy, content, and tone. Analyses were conducted between subspecialties, against national organizations, NIH standard, and across demographic variables. Results: = 0.005). ChatGPT-generated materials averaged a 6.8-grade level, demonstrating improved readability, especially with specialized prompting, compared to all hospital and organization OPEMs. Conclusion: OPEMs from all sources exceed the NIH readability standard. ENTUK serves as a benchmark for accessible language, while ChatGPT demonstrates the feasibility of producing more readable content. Otolaryngologists might consider using ChatGPT to generate patient-friendly materials, with caution, and advocate for national-level improvements in patient education readability.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaryngoscope Investigative OtolaryngologySame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207