ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2024
Text and Audio Simplification: Human vs. ChatGPT.
Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimization of University Counseling Consent Forms With Large Language Models: Multidimensional Comparative Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Parallel Corpus Analysis of Text and Audio Comprehension to Evaluate Readability Formula Effectiveness: Quantitative Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Text and Audio Simplification: A Methodological Replication Study.Communications of the Association for Information Systems · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Text and audio simplification to increase information comprehension are important in healthcare. With the introduction of ChatGPT, evaluation of its simplification performance is needed. We provide a systematic comparison of human and ChatGPT simplified texts using fourteen metrics indicative of text difficulty. We briefly introduce our online editor where these simplification tools, including ChatGPT, are available. We scored twelve corpora using our metrics: six text, one audio, and five ChatGPT simplified corpora (using five different prompts). We then compare these corpora with texts simplified and verified in a prior user study. Finally, a medical domain expert evaluated the user study texts and five, new ChatGPT simplified versions. We found that simple corpora show higher similarity with the human simplified texts. ChatGPT simplification moves metrics in the right direction. The medical domain expert's evaluation showed a preference for the ChatGPT style, but the text itself was rated lower for content retention.
Identifiers
38827082PMC11141852What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.