ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Exploration of the optimal deep learning model for english-Japanese machine translation of medical device adverse event terminology.
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 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.
- Challenges, Ethical Considerations, and Best Practices of Using AI-Assisted Translation in Medical Writing: Examples From Japanese-English Translations.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Can machine translation match human expertise? Quantifying the performance of large language models in the translation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Exploration of the optimal deep learning model for english-Japanese machine translation of medical device adverse event terminology.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Japan, reporting of medical device malfunctions and related health problems is mandatory, and efforts are being made to standardize terminology through the Adverse Event Terminology Collection of the Japan Federation of Medical Device Associations (JFMDA). Internationally, the Adverse Event Terminology of the International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF-AET) provides a standardized terminology collection in English. Mapping between the JFMDA terminology collection and the IMDRF-AET is critical to international harmonization. However, the process of translating the terminology collections from English to Japanese and reconciling them is done manually, resulting in high human workloads and potential inaccuracies.
objectiveThe purpose of this study is to investigate the optimal machine translation model for the IMDRF-AET into Japanese for the part of a function for the automatic terminology mapping system.
methodsEnglish-Japanese parallel data for IMDRF-AET published by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in Japan was obtained from 50 sentences randomly extracted from the terms and their definitions. These English sentences were fed into the following machine translation models to produce Japanese translations: mBART50, m2m-100, Google Translation, Multilingual T5, GPT-3, ChatGPT, and GPT-4. The evaluations included the quantitative metrics of BiLingual Evaluation Understudy (BLEU), Character Error Rate (CER), Word Error Rate (WER), Metric for Evaluation of Translation with Explicit ORdering (METEOR), and Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) score, as well as qualitative evaluations by four experts.
resultsGPT-4 outperformed other models in both the quantitative and qualitative evaluations, with ChatGPT showing the same capability, but with lower quantitative scores, in the qualitative evaluation. Scores of other models, including mBART50 and m2m-100, lagged behind, particularly in the CER and BERT scores.
conclusionGPT-4's superior performance in translating medical terminology, indicates its potential utility in improving the efficiency of the terminology mapping system.
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.