Observational studyHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2025
Artificial intelligence-simplified information to advance reproductive genetic literacy and health equity.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of ChatGPT and DeepSeek in Urology Medical Education: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
- Performance of 5 Large Language Models in Perioperative Consultation for Pediatric Hypospadias: Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Performance of ChatGPT-4o in Providing Information on Pediatric Inborn Errors of Immunity: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Automated Approaches of Text Simplification of Patient Education Materials: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: Current Evidence, Limitations, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Key Outcomes from a Stakeholder Workshop on Genomic Newborn Screening: Recommended Next Steps for the Integration of Genomics into Public Health Programs.Public health genomics · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional evaluation of large language model chatbot interfaces for patient-facing herpes zoster information: safety, information quality, and readability.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
10 authors.
Funding
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
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.