Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41129526›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Evaluating Uighur literary translation: A comparative study of ChatGPT, Google Translate, and Bing Translator.

Qiufen Wang

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Qiufen WangSchool of Languages, Literacies and Translation, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia; Wuhan University of Engineering Science, Wuhan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-2895-4862

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study compares generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and neural machine translation (NMT) systems in translating Uighur literary text (قۇتادغۇ بىلىك)into English. Two NMT systems, Google Translate and Bing Translator, were evaluated alongside ChatGPT, a GenAI large language model, under two prompt strategies. Translation quality was assessed through automatic metrics (BLEU, ROUGE-N/L, METEOR, and BERT-based semantic similarity), automated error counts (grammar, spelling, style), and expert ratings across four dimensions. Qualitative examples of culturally sensitive excerpts were also examined to illustrate success and failure cases. Results show that ChatGPT, especially with a concise instruction prompt, generally outperforms NMT systems in semantic accuracy, fluency, and cultural adequacy. Bing Translator produced the highest number of errors, particularly spelling mistakes, while Google Translate demonstrated more stable but moderate performance. Statistical testing and expert evaluations supported these patterns, and case analyses revealed how NMT outputs often distorted meaning through polarity reversal and semantic shifts. The findings highlight prompt engineering as a key factor for improving GenAI-based literary translation while recognizing the complementary strengths of GenAI adaptability and NMT stability. Future research should expand language and system coverage and examine the role of human post-editing in enhancing translation quality.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceLanguageTranslatingGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansSemantics

Identifiers

PMID41129526
PMCPMC12548925

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.