ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2025
Better understanding: can a large language model safely improve readability of patient information leaflets in interventional radiology?
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of using a large language model (LLM) to generate patient information leaflets (PILs) with improved readability based on PILs in the field of interventional radiology.
methodsPILs were acquired from the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe website, reformatted, and uploaded to the GPT-4 user interface with a prompt aimed to simplify the language. Automated readability metrics were used to evaluate the readability of original and LLM-modified PILs. Factual accuracy was assessed by human evaluation from three consultant interventional radiologists using an agreed marking scheme.
resultsLLM-modified PILs had significantly lower mean reading grade (9.5±0.5) compared with original PILs (11.1±0.1) (p<0.01). However, the recommended reading grade of 6 (expected to be understood by 11- to 12-year-old children) was not achieved. Human evaluation revealed that most LLM-modified PILs had minor concerns regarding factual accuracy, but no errors that could result in serious patient harm were detected. DISCUSSION: LLMs appear to be a powerful tool in improving the readability of PILs within the field of interventional radiology. However, clinical experts are still required in PIL development to ensure the factual accuracy of these augmented documents is not compromised.
conclusionLLMs should be considered as a useful tool to assist with the development and revision of PILs in the field of interventional radiology.
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.