Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39849504›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025

Enhancing doctor-patient communication using large language models for pathology report interpretation.

Xiongwen Yang, Yi Xiao, Di Liu, Yun Zhang, Huiyin Deng, Jian Huang, Huiyou Shi, Dan Liu, Maoli Liang, Xing Jin and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Xiongwen YangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, No. 83, Zhongshan East Road, Guiyang, Guizhou, 550000, China.
Yi XiaoDepartment of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Di LiuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, No. 83, Zhongshan East Road, Guiyang, Guizhou, 550000, China.
Yun ZhangDepartment of Pathology, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, Guizhou, China.
Huiyin DengDepartment of Anesthesiology, the Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Jian HuangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Jiangxi Cancer Hospital, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Huiyou ShiDepartment of Radiology, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, Guizhou, China.
Dan LiuDepartment of Medical Records and Statistics, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, Guizhou, China.
Maoli LiangNHC Key Laboratory of Pulmonary Immunological Diseases, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, Guizhou, 550000, China.
Xing JinDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, No. 83, Zhongshan East Road, Guiyang, Guizhou, 550000, China.
Yongpan SunDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, No. 83, Zhongshan East Road, Guiyang, Guizhou, 550000, China.
Jing YaoDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, No. 83, Zhongshan East Road, Guiyang, Guizhou, 550000, China.
XiaoJiang ZhouDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, No. 83, Zhongshan East Road, Guiyang, Guizhou, 550000, China.
Wankai GuoDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, No. 83, Zhongshan East Road, Guiyang, Guizhou, 550000, China.
Yang HeDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, No. 83, Zhongshan East Road, Guiyang, Guizhou, 550000, China.
WeiJuan TangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, No. 83, Zhongshan East Road, Guiyang, Guizhou, 550000, China.
Chuan XuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, No. 83, Zhongshan East Road, Guiyang, Guizhou, 550000, China. xuchuan89757@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in healthcare settings. Postoperative pathology reports, which are essential for diagnosing and determining treatment strategies for surgical patients, frequently include complex data that can be challenging for patients to comprehend. This complexity can adversely affect the quality of communication between doctors and patients about their diagnosis and treatment options, potentially impacting patient outcomes such as understanding of their condition, treatment adherence, and overall satisfaction. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis study analyzed text pathology reports from four hospitals between October and December 2023, focusing on malignant tumors. Using GPT-4, we developed templates for interpretive pathology reports (IPRs) to simplify medical terminology for non-professionals. We randomly selected 70 reports to generate these templates and evaluated the remaining 628 reports for consistency and readability. Patient understanding was measured using a custom-designed pathology report understanding level assessment scale, scored by volunteers with no medical background. The study also recorded doctor-patient communication time and patient comprehension levels before and after using IPRs.

resultsAmong 698 pathology reports analyzed, the interpretation through LLMs significantly improved readability and patient understanding. The average communication time between doctors and patients decreased by over 70%, from 35 to 10 min (P < 0.001), with the use of IPRs. The study also found that patients scored higher on understanding levels when provided with AI-generated reports, from 5.23 points to 7.98 points (P < 0.001), with the use of IPRs. indicating an effective translation of complex medical information. Consistency between original pathology reports (OPRs) and IPRs was also evaluated, with results showing high levels of consistency across all assessed dimensions, achieving an average score of 4.95 out of 5.

conclusionThis research demonstrates the efficacy of LLMs like GPT-4 in enhancing doctor-patient communication by translating pathology reports into more accessible language. While this study did not directly measure patient outcomes or satisfaction, it provides evidence that improved understanding and reduced communication time may positively influence patient engagement. These findings highlight the potential of AI to bridge gaps between medical professionals and the public in healthcare environments.

Indexed as

CommunicationElectronic Health RecordsNeoplasmsPhysician-Patient RelationsComprehensionHumansLarge Language ModelsDoctor-patient communicationLarge language modelsPostoperative pathology reportsSurgical oncology scene

Identifiers

PMID39849504
PMCPMC11756061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.