TRV-2026-1440Certified recordPeer-reviewed

Reliability, Readability, and Safety of Generative AI Chatbots for Osteoporosis Health Counseling: A Multidimensional Cross-Sectional Comparative Study

Background and aims: Generative artificial intelligence chatbots are increasingly used for health information, but their reliability, readability, and safety in osteoporosis counseling remain uncertain. This study compared four widely available chatbots under standardized conditions. Methods: Twenty-five standardized osteoporosis questions were submitted once to ChatGPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Copilot, and Perplexity Pro, generating 100 responses. Two model-blinded specialists evaluated the final responses using DISC…

Health · The Trace — both readings · certified 2026-10-15 · v1 · article view · machine-readable

Current reading — gain

Perplexity Pro and Copilot earned higher DISCERN information-quality medians (55.0 and 54.0) than Gemini 2.5 Pro (44.0) and ChatGPT-5 (42.0) on osteoporosis questions.

Current reading — problem

All four chatbots wrote above the sixth-grade readability benchmark, and the safety review found clinically relevant omissions and an unsupported claim in the answers.

What this doesn’t fix

The findings apply only to the tested models, prompts and evaluation period, and the authors say they do not establish a universal effect of retrieval augmentation.

Evidence

Reader signal

How should this claim be treated?

Cite this record

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-1440, v1: “Reliability, Readability, and Safety of Generative AI Chatbots for Osteoporosis Health Counseling: A Multidimensional Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.” Truvace, 2026-10-15. /record/TRV-2026-1440 (accessed at citation time). sha256 c35f8398aba6539e…

Calibration history

Every change to this record since certification, in the open. None yet — the reading has held since it entered the record.

  1. Certifiedv1c35f8398aba6…

    Certified into the record

Verify this record
How to verify without trusting this page

Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-1440 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.