Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40385917›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Comparing ChatGPT-4 and Human Translation of an Outcome Questionnaire: A Randomized, Double-Blinded Non-inferiority Study.

Christopher B Sørensen, Anders Gram-Hanssen, Jacob Rosenberg, Jason J Baker

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

4 authors.

Christopher B SørensenSurgery, Herlev Hospital, Herlev, DNK.
Anders Gram-HanssenSurgery, Herlev Hospital, Herlev, DNK.
Jacob RosenbergSurgery, Herlev Hospital, Herlev, DNK.
Jason J BakerSurgery, Herlev Hospital, Herlev, DNK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction This study aimed to investigate whether ChatGPT-4 could replace traditional forward-backward translation by humans when translating a questionnaire into another language through a non-inferiority design. Methods The questionnaire Abdominal Hernia-Q was translated from English to Danish twice using two different modalities: once with traditional forward-backward translations by human translators and once with ChatGPT-4, resulting in two parallel arms. Each version was randomly assigned to 10 participants who had previously undergone ventral hernia repair. All 20 participants had to evaluate the two translations randomly, both before and after face validation. The participants and the interviewer who conducted the face validation were blinded to the translation modalities. The participants were asked to evaluate readability, comprehension, appropriate use of language, and their overall opinion of the two translated questionnaires before and after face validation on a Likert scale of 1-5 . For each outcome, the non-inferiority limit was set to 1 point on the Likert scale. Results Both translations were evaluated by 20 participants before face validation and 18 participants after. Before face validation, relevant and significant differences were found for all outcomes favoring the human-translated version, and most participants accurately guessed the translation modality and preferred the human translation. After face validation, there were no significant differences between the assessments of the two versions of the questionnaire, their guesses were less accurate, and no significant difference in their preference was observed. Conclusion ChatGPT-4 may serve as a suitable substitute for traditional forward-backward translation when translating an outcome questionnaire, provided that the ChatGPT-4 translation is subjected to human quality control and is pretested through face validation before clinical use.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencechatgptface validationquestionnairetranslation

Identifiers

PMID40385917
PMCPMC12085935

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.