ArticleResearch square2025
Balancing Efficiency and Engagement: AI-Assisted Content for Research Communications in the RECOVER Initiative.
Article in Research square, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: The growing availability of AI tools is transforming health and science communication by streamlining content creation and promotion. This study investigates the impact of AI-assisted research summaries on user engagement with the NIH-funded RECOVER program's website and evaluates the efficiency and readability of the content. Methods: We analyzed Google Analytics 4 data from two distinct periods: one with entirely human-generated content and a second with AI-assisted content. We measured changes in page views, active users, and average engagement time, and assessed the review time and readability of the AI-enhanced summaries. Results: There was no significant change in page views or active users between the two periods. However, average engagement time increased by 4.37 seconds (P = .0461), suggesting AI-assisted content may be more compelling. Human review of AI-drafts averaged 19.88 changes, and readability improved, with the mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level decreasing from 12.28 to 11.56. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that AI can be a valuable tool for accelerating the creation of accessible and engaging content. Our findings highlight a crucial balance: while AI can save effort and reduce cost in public engagement efforts, human oversight remains essential to ensure the accuracy, clarity, and accessibility of vital health communications.
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.