Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40692125›Full record

Observational studyHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2025

Artificial intelligence-simplified information to advance reproductive genetic literacy and health equity.

Marjan Naghdi, Ping Cao, Rick Essers, Malou Heijligers, Aimee D C Paulussen, Arie van der Lugt, Robert A C Ruiter, Wendy A G van Zelst-Stams, Andres Salumets, Masoud Zamani Esteki

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors.

Marjan NaghdiDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0000-1086-2243
Ping CaoDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3049-7084
Rick EssersDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6529-4343
Malou HeijligersDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0174-8278
Aimee D C PaulussenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1661-7625
Arie van der LugtSection Teaching and Innovation of Learning (STIL), Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Robert A C RuiterDepartment of Work and Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Wendy A G van Zelst-StamsDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Andres SalumetsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.ORCID 0000-0002-1251-8160
Masoud Zamani EstekiDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3909-0050

Funding

Estonian Research Council PRG1076European Commission, the Swedish Research Council 2024-02530Horizon-2020 Innovation ERIN-EU952516Novo Nordisk Foundation NNF24OC0092384
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionCan artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) effectively simplify patient education materials (PEMs) to advance reproductive genetic literacy and health equity? SUMMARY ANSWER: LLMs offer a promising approach to support healthcare professionals in generating effective, and simplified PEMs. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Reproductive genetic testing and counseling holds the potential to support a personalized approach to reduce the burden of genetic disorders. However, its uptake remains limited due to the complexity of the tests and the way that PEMs have been designed. This is more prominent in reproductive genetic testing, as vulnerability of patients may lead to over- or under-use of genetic testing technologies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We carried out a comparative observational study to evaluate the capacity of four AI/LLMs to simplify PEMs (n = 30) in reproductive genetics and assessing the clinical accuracy of simplified versions (n = 120) by experts (n = 30). Additionally, we devised a graphical user interface (GUI) to support real-time text simplification and readability analysis. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsWe collected 30 PEMs covering six topics in reproductive genetics from well-recognized platforms, such as WHO, MedlinePlus, and Johns Hopkins. Each PEM was processed by four AI/LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Copilot, Gemini) using a fixed prompt, resulting in 120 simplified outputs. We measured readability improvements using five validated metrics, such as simple measure of gobbledygook, each capturing distinct textual characteristics such as sentence length and word complexity. To evaluate clinical reliability of the simplified outputs, a panel of experts (n = 30) in reproductive genetics independently scored each text (3 per text). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: All four LLMs significantly improved the readability of the PEMs (P-values <0.001), reducing text complexity to an average 6th-7th grade reading level. While Gemini and Copilot achieved the highest improvement in readability scores, GPT-4 received the highest expert rating across all criteria-accuracy (4.1 ± 0.9), completeness (4.2 ± 0.8), and relevance of omissions (4.0 ± 0.9; P < 10-8). These findings highlight the importance of balancing readability with content integrity to support informed decision-making, as excessive simplification may compromise essential medical information. We devised an open-access GUI that provides real-time PEM simplification and readability analysis to support the integration of AI-assisted approaches in clinical practice (https://huggingface.co/spaces/CellularGenomicMedicine/HealthLiteracyEvaluator). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Careful evaluation of LLM-simplified PEMs is required to ensure that simplification does not lead to omission of critical information. In addition, in this study, we report only the readability improvements of AI-generated texts and expert evaluations. To truly assess the potential of these tools in advancing reproductive genetic literacy and promoting health equity, real-world patient feedback is essential. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsIntegrating AI/LLM into patient education strategies may advance health equity by improving understanding and facilitating informed decision-making. Thereby, more effective engagement of patients in reproductive genetic testing programs by assisting them with well-informed decision-making. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The EVA specialty program (KP111513) of MUMC+, the Horizon-Europe (NESTOR-101120075), the Estonian Research Council (PRG1076), the Horizon-2020 innovation (ERIN-EU952516) grants of the European Commission, the Swedish Research Council (grant no. 2024-02530), and the Novo Nordisk Foundation (grant no. NNF24OC0092384). The authors declare no conflict of interest relevant to this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceGenetic TestingHealth EquityHealth LiteracyPatient Education as TopicFemaleHumansAIartificial intelligencehealth literacylarge language modelsLLMspatient education material (PEM)readabilityreproductive geneticssimplification

Identifiers

PMID40692125
PMCPMC12408898

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.