Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40228244›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025

Summarizing Online Patient Conversations Using Generative Language Models: Experimental and Comparative Study.

Rakhi Asokkumar Subjagouri Nair, Matthias Hartung, Philipp Heinisch, Janik Jaskolski, Cornelius Starke-Knäusel, Susana Veríssimo, David Maria Schmidt, Philipp Cimiano

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

8 authors.

Rakhi Asokkumar Subjagouri NairCognitive Interaction Technology Center, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0009-0001-8727-2599
Matthias HartungSemalytix GmbH, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6549-066X
Philipp HeinischCognitive Interaction Technology Center, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0009-0002-8079-5570
Janik JaskolskiSemalytix GmbH, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-7766-5701
Cornelius Starke-KnäuselSemalytix GmbH, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-7331-9668
Susana VeríssimoSemalytix GmbH, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-3406-6063
David Maria SchmidtCognitive Interaction Technology Center, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7728-2884
Philipp CimianoCognitive Interaction Technology Center, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4771-441X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial media is acknowledged by regulatory bodies (eg, the Food and Drug Administration) as an important source of patient experience data to learn about patients' unmet needs, priorities, and preferences. However, current methods rely either on manual analysis and do not scale, or on automatic processing, yielding mainly quantitative insights. Methods that can automatically summarize texts and yield qualitative insights at scale are missing.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate to what extent state-of-the-art large language models can appropriately summarize posts shared by patients in web-based forums and health communities. Specifically, the goal was to compare the performance of different language models and prompting strategies on the task of summarizing documents reflecting the experiences of individual patients.

methodsIn our experimental and comparative study, we applied 3 different language models (Flan-T5, Generative Pretrained Transformer [GPT], GPT-3, and GPT-3.5) in combination with various prompting strategies to the task of summarizing posts from patients in online communities. The generated summaries were evaluated with respect to 124 manually created summaries as a ground-truth reference. As evaluation metrics, we used 2 standard metrics from the field of text generation, namely, Recall-Oriented Understudy for Gisting Evaluation (ROUGE) and BERTScore, to compare the automatically generated summaries to the manually created reference summaries.

resultsAmong the zero-shot prompting-based large language models investigated, GPT-3.5 performed better than the other models with respect to the ROUGE metrics, as well as with respect to BERTScore. While zero-shot prompting seems to be a good prompting strategy, overall GPT-3.5 in combination with directional stimulus prompting in a 3-shot setting had the best results with respect to the aforementioned metrics. A manual investigation of the summarization of the best-performing method showed that the generated summaries were accurate and plausible compared to the manual summaries.

conclusionsTaken together, our results suggest that state-of-the-art pretrained language models are a valuable tool to provide qualitative insights about the patient experience to better understand unmet needs, patient priorities, and how a disease impacts daily functioning and quality of life to inform processes aimed at improving health care delivery and ensure that drug development focuses more on the actual priorities and unmet needs of patients. The key limitations of our work are the small data sample as well as the fact that the manual summaries were created by 1 annotator only. Furthermore, the results hold only for the examined models and prompting strategies, potentially not generalizing to other models and strategies.

Indexed as

CommunicationLanguageNatural Language ProcessingSocial MediaHumanslarge language modelsonline communitiespatient experiencesummarizing

Identifiers

PMID40228244
PMCPMC12038288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.