ArticleDigital health
Exploring the opportunities of large language models for summarizing palliative care consultations: A pilot comparative study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The PALLI-AI Framework: An Evidence-Informed Checklist for Designing and Reporting Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence Tools in Palliative and End-of-Life Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Validating Digital Scribes: A Scoping Review of Evaluation Practices and Clinical Use.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Comparing Large Language Models and Traditional Machine Translation Tools for Translating Medical Consultation Summaries: Quantitative Pilot Feasibility Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Primer on large language models: an educational overview for intensivists.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
- Exploring large language models for summarizing and interpreting an online brain tumor support forum.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Recent developments in the field of large language models have showcased impressive achievements in their ability to perform natural language processing tasks, opening up possibilities for use in critical domains like telehealth. We conducted a pilot study on the opportunities of utilizing large language models, specifically GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and LLaMA 2, in the context of zero-shot summarization of doctor-patient conversation during a palliative care teleconsultation. Methods: We created a bespoke doctor-patient conversation to evaluate the quality of medical conversation summarization, employing established automatic metrics such as BLEU, ROUGE-L, METEOR, and BERTScore for quality assessment, and using the Flesch-Kincaid grade Level for readability to understand the efficacy and suitability of these models in the medical domain. Results: For automatic metrics, LLaMA2-7B scored the highest in BLEU, indicating strong n-gram precision, while GPT-4 excelled in both ROUGE-L and METEOR, demonstrating its capability to capture longer sequences and semantic accuracy. GPT-4 also led in BERTScore, suggesting better semantic similarity at the token level compared to others. For readability, LLaMA 7B and LLaMA 13B produced summaries with Flesch-Kincaid grade levels of 11.9 and 12.6, respectively, which are somewhat more complex than the reference value of 10.6. LLaMA 70B generated summaries closest to the reference in simplicity, with a score of 10.7. GPT-3.5's summaries were the most complex at a grade level of 15.2, while GPT-4's summaries had a grade level of 13.1, making them moderately accessible. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that all the models have similar performance for the palliative care consultation, with GPT-4 being slightly better at balancing understanding content and maintaining structural similarity to the source, which makes it a potentially better choice for creating patient-friendly medical summaries. Threats and limitations of such approaches are also embedded in our analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.