ArticleCommunications medicine2025
Evaluation of a large language model to simplify discharge summaries and provide cardiological lifestyle recommendations.
Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of Large Language Models in Chronic Disease Care: Mixed Methods Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Methods of Evaluating Large Language Model-Based Health Care Applications Used by Nonprofessionals: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- How ChatGPT writes scientific titles in medical research: structural and content differences compared to human authors.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- Edge-Hosted LLM-Assisted NICU Discharge Summary Generation: Field-Level Evaluation Using a Clinician-Defined Rubric.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Expert Evaluation and Consensus on GPT-4o Summaries of Clinical Letters: Validation and Results of the Framework and Implementation of AI Tools Project.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Omission and hallucination prevalence of clinical guidelines in diagnostic large language model outputs.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- Optimization of University Counseling Consent Forms With Large Language Models: Multidimensional Comparative Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Effect of Emotional Prompt on the Quality of ChatGPT Based Discharge Instructions After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Using ERAS Derived Benchmarks.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 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
backgroundHospital discharge summaries are essential for the continuity of care. However, medical jargon, abbreviations, and technical language often make them too complex for patients to understand, and they frequently omit lifestyle recommendations important for self-management. This study explored using a large language model (LLM) to enhance discharge summary readability and augment it with lifestyle recommendations.
methodsWe collected 20 anonymized cardiology discharge summaries. GPT-4o was prompted using full-text and segment-wise approaches to simplify each summary and generate lifestyle recommendations. Readability was measured via three standardized metrics (modified Flesch-Reading-Ease, Vienna Non-fiction Text Formula, Lesbarkeitsindex), and multiple quality dimensions were evaluated by 12 medical experts.
resultsLLM-generated summaries from both prompting approaches are significantly more readable compared to the original summaries across all metrics (p < 0.0001). Based on 60 expert ratings for the full-text approach and 60 for the segment-wise approach, experts '(strongly) agree' that LLM-summaries are correct (full-text: 85%; segment-wise: 80%), complete (78%; 92%), harmless (83%; 88%), and comprehensible for patients (88%; 97%). Experts '(strongly) agree' that LLM-generated recommendations are relevant in 92%, evidence-based in 88%, personalized in 70%, complete in 88%, consistent in 93%, and harmless in 88% of 60 ratings.
conclusionsLLM-generated summaries achieve a 10th-grade readability level and high-quality ratings. While LLM-generated lifestyle recommendations are generally of high quality, personalization is limited. These findings suggest that LLMs could help create more patient-centric discharge summaries. Further research is needed to confirm clinical utility and address quality assurance, regulatory compliance, and clinical integration challenges.
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.