ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
HEAL-Summ: a lightweight and ethical framework for accessible summarization of health information.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Introduction: The growing volume and complexity of health-related news presents significant barriers to public understanding. While large language models (LLMs) offer a promising means of summarizing such content, many approaches are computationally expensive and can lack sufficient evaluation of ethical as well as representational quality. Methods: To address these limitations, this research proposes a lightweight framework called Health Ethics & Accessibility with Lightweight Summarization (HEAL-Summ) for summarizing Canadian health news articles using LLMs. The framework incorporates three models (Phi 3, Qwen 2.5, and Llama 3.2) and integrates a multi-dimensional evaluation strategy to assess semantic consistency, readability, lexical diversity, emotional alignment, and toxicity. Results: Comparative analyses shows consistent semantic agreement across models, with Phi yielding more accessible summaries and Qwen producing greater emotional as well as lexical diversity. Statistical significance testing supports key differences in readability and emotional tone. Discussion: This work goes beyond single-model summarization by providing a structured and ethical framework for longitudinal news analysis, emphasizing low-resource deployment and built-in automated evaluations. The findings highlight the potential for lightweight LLMs to facilitate transparent and emotionally sensitive communication in public health, while maintaining a balance between linguistic expressiveness and ethical reliability. The proposed framework offers a scalable path forward for improving access to complex health information in resource-constrained or high-stakes environments.
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.