TRV-2026-2254Certified recordPeer-reviewed

Quality, Transparency, and Readability of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots as Sources of Plagiocephaly Information: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study

Parents increasingly use artificial intelligence chatbots for information about plagiocephaly, but the quality and readability of their responses remain uncertain. This cross-sectional study compared 4 mainstream artificial intelligence chatbots using 37 high-frequency English queries identified through Google Trends for "plagiocephaly" worldwide over the previous 5 years. On August 18, 2026, the queries were submitted to ChatGPT 5.5, Gemini 3.5 Flash, Perplexity, and Copilot, generating 148 responses. Informati…

Health · The Trace — both readings · certified 2026-10-25 · v1 · article view · machine-readable

Current reading — gain

Chatbots gave coherent, relatively complete plagiocephaly information, with a median Global Quality Scale score of 4.00 across all four models.

Current reading — problem

Chatbot plagiocephaly answers were written above recommended reading levels and offered limited source transparency, with quality varying widely between models.

What this doesn’t fix

The study used only English queries submitted on a single date to four chatbot versions, so the findings reflect a snapshot of those models.

Evidence

Reader signal

How should this claim be treated?

Cite this record

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2254, v1: “Quality, Transparency, and Readability of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots as Sources of Plagiocephaly Information: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.” Truvace, 2026-10-25. /record/TRV-2026-2254 (accessed at citation time). sha256 b3e344afd56dce8a…

Calibration history

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

  1. Certifiedv1b3e344afd56d…

    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-2026-2254 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.