ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
Transforming Informed Consent Generation Using Large Language Models: Mixed Methods Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- What Resources Are Available for Parents Online? A Readability, Quality, and Source Evaluation of Website and AI-Generated Content on Inherited Pediatric Orthopaedic Conditions.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Readiness in Clinical Trial Operations: A Narrative Review and Site-Level Governance Framework.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- RESPECT: a conversational AI system for informed consent with accuracy, safety, and stakeholder-centered evaluation.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language models for simplifying non-English medical consent with clinician involvement.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Optimization of University Counseling Consent Forms With Large Language Models: Multidimensional Comparative Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Scaling medical AI across clinical contexts.Nature medicine · 2026Review
- LuminaConsent: AI-driven standardization and quality enhancement of urological informed consent documentation.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2026Article
- Large language models in healthcare quality management: a European perspective on process automation and compliance.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in multidisciplinary tumor boards enhancing decision making and clinical outcomes in oncology.iScience · 2025Review
- Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Informed consent forms (ICFs) for clinical trials have become increasingly complex, often hindering participant comprehension and engagement due to legal jargon and lengthy content. The recent advances in large language models (LLMs) present an opportunity to streamline the ICF creation process while improving readability, understandability, and actionability. objectives: This study aims to evaluate the performance of the Mistral 8x22B LLM in generating ICFs with improved readability, understandability, and actionability. Specifically, we evaluate the model's effectiveness in generating ICFs that are readable, understandable, and actionable while maintaining the accuracy and completeness. Methods: We processed 4 clinical trial protocols from the institutional review board of UMass Chan Medical School using the Mistral 8x22B model to generate key information sections of ICFs. A multidisciplinary team of 8 evaluators, including clinical researchers and health informaticians, assessed the generated ICFs against human-generated counterparts for completeness, accuracy, readability, understandability, and actionability. Readability, Understandability, and Actionability of Key Information indicators, which include 18 binary-scored items, were used to evaluate these aspects, with higher scores indicating greater accessibility, comprehensibility, and actionability of the information. Statistical analysis, including Wilcoxon rank sum tests and intraclass correlation coefficient calculations, was used to compare outputs. Results: LLM-generated ICFs demonstrated comparable performance to human-generated versions across key sections, with no significant differences in accuracy and completeness (P>.10). The LLM outperformed human-generated ICFs in readability (Readability, Understandability, and Actionability of Key Information score of 76.39% vs 66.67%; Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 7.95 vs 8.38) and understandability (90.63% vs 67.19%; P=.02). The LLM-generated content achieved a perfect score in actionability compared with the human-generated version (100% vs 0%; P<.001). Intraclass correlation coefficient for evaluator consistency was high at 0.83 (95% CI 0.64-1.03), indicating good reliability across assessments. Conclusions: The Mistral 8x22B LLM showed promising capabilities in enhancing the readability, understandability, and actionability of ICFs without sacrificing accuracy or completeness. LLMs present a scalable, efficient solution for ICF generation, potentially enhancing participant comprehension and consent in clinical trials.
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.