<p>Correlation analysis between variables.</p>

Scientific reliability was audited via the Modified DISCERN and JAMA benchmarks, while content quality was examined using the GQS and EQIP instruments. The median readability scores computed across all three AI models were found to be statistically and significantly above the targeted sixth-grade comprehension threshold, indicating a high level of difficulty (p < 0.001). Post-hoc pairwise evaluations revealed that ChatGPT and Gemini offered linguistically more accessible and structurally less complex textual architectures; conversely, Perplexity exhibited a significantly more difficult and academic linguistic framework (p < 0.0167).

On the other hand, regarding content quality and source credibility, Perplexity demonstrated remarkably superior and more optimized scores across all evaluated instruments, namely GQS (p = 0.002, p = 0.001), JAMA (p < 0.001, p < 0.001), mDISCERN (p = 0.005, p = 0.001), and EQIP (p = 0.003, p < 0.001), compared directly to both ChatGPT and Gemini, respectively. Although generative AI formulations harbor considerable potential to provide extensive data on pediatric chest pain, the sophisticated, university-level linguistic architecture of these texts poses a substantial access barrier for individuals who lack proficient digital health literacy skills.

While Perplexity achieved the performance closest to the “gold standard” in terms of informational accuracy, no model is currently mature enough to substitute for a professional medical consultation due to observed citation biases and omissions. It is of paramount importance that clinicians actively guide families to scrutinize online health data through a critical lens.</p></div>