Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40260353›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Assessing the Capability of Large Language Model Chatbots in Generating Plain Language Summaries.

Himel Mondal, Gaurav Gupta, Pradosh Kumar Sarangi, Shreya Sharma, Pritam K Choudhary, Ayesha Juhi, Anita Kumari, Shaikat Mondal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Writing. The Danger of Trying Too Hard to Please.Hemodialysis international. International Symposium on Home Hemodialysis · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

Himel MondalPhysiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, IND.
Gaurav GuptaPediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Guwahati, IND.
Pradosh Kumar SarangiRadiodiagnosis, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, IND.
Shreya SharmaNeuromodulation Laboratory/Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, IND.
Pritam K ChoudharyNeuromodulation Laboratory/Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, IND.
Ayesha JuhiPhysiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, IND.
Anita KumariPhysiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, IND.
Shaikat MondalPhysiology, Raiganj Government Medical College and Hospital, Raiganj, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Plain language summaries (PLSs) make scientific research accessible to a broad non-expert audience. However, crafting effective PLS can be challenging, particularly for non-native English-speaking researchers. Large language model (LLM) chatbots have the potential to assist in generating summaries, but their effectiveness compared to human-generated PLS remains underexplored. Methods This cross-sectional study compared 30 human-written PLS with LLM chatbot (viz., ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA), Claude (Anthropic, San Francisco, CA), Copilot (Microsoft Corp., Washington, DC), Gemini (Google, Mountain View, CA), Meta AI (Meta, Menlo Park, CA), and Perplexity (Perplexity AI, Inc., San Francisco, CA)) generated PLS. The readability of the PLS was checked by the Flesch reading (FR) ease score, and understandability was checked by the Flesch-Kincaid (FK) grade level. Three authors rated the text on seven-item predefined criteria, and their average score was used to compare the quality of the PLS. Results In comparison to human-written PLS, chatbots could generate PLS with lower FK grade levels (p-value < 0.0001) and except Copilot, all others had higher FR ease scores. The overall score of human-written PLS was 8.89±0.26. Although there was statistically significant variance among the scores (F = 7.16, p-value = 0.0012), in the post-hoc test, there was no difference between human-generated and individual chatbots-generated PLS (ChatGPT 8.8±0.34, Claude 8.89±0.33, Copilot 8.69±0.4, Gemini 8.56±0.56, Meta AI 8.98±0.23, and Perplexity 8.8±0.3). Conclusion LLM chatbots can generate PLS with better readability and a person with a lower grade of education can understand it. The PLS are of similar quality to those written by human authors. Hence, authors can generate PLS from LLM chatbots and it is particularly beneficial for researchers in developing countries. While LLM chatbots improve readability, they may introduce minor inaccuracies also. Hence, PLS generated by LLM should always checked for accuracy and relevancy.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencechatbotchatgptclaudelarge language modellayman summarymanuscript preparationmedical writingplain language summaryscientific writing

Identifiers

PMID40260353
PMCPMC12010112

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.