ArticleCureus2025
Comparing ChatGPT-4 and Human Translation of an Outcome Questionnaire: A Randomized, Double-Blinded Non-inferiority Study.
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.
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.
- Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of the Storm Fear Questionnaire in Brazilian Pregnant Women Exposed to an Extreme Climate Event.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- A Descriptive Review of Nordic Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pediatric ADHD: Evaluating the Evidence Base for Methylphenidate.Scandinavian journal of child and adolescent psychiatry and psychology · 2026Review
- Translation, cultural adaptation, and psychometric testing of the measure for unfinished care among nursing assistants in long-term care homes in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.