ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2026
Lessons from the TREC Plain Language Adaptation of Biomedical Abstracts (PLABA) track.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2026. 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRecent advances in language models have shown potential to adapt professional-facing biomedical literature to plain language, making it accessible to patients and caregivers. However, their unpredictability and high potential for harm in this domain means rigorous evaluation is necessary. Our goals with this track were to stimulate research and to provide high-quality evaluation of the most promising systems.
methodsWe hosted the Plain Language Adaptation of Biomedical Abstracts (PLABA) track at the 2023 and 2024 Text Retrieval Conferences. Tasks included complete, sentence-level rewriting of 400 abstracts related to 40 consumer questions (Task 1) as well as identifying and replacing difficult terms in 300 abstracts spanning 30 consumer questions (Task 2). For automatic evaluation of Task 1, we developed a four-fold professionally-written reference set. Submissions for both tasks were also provided extensive manual evaluation from biomedical experts.
resultsTwelve teams spanning twelve countries participated, with models from multilayer perceptrons to large pretrained transformers. In manual judgments of Task 1, top-performing models rivaled human factual accuracy and completeness, but not simplicity or brevity. Automatic, reference-based metrics generally did not correlate well with manual judgments. In Task 2, systems struggled with identifying difficult terms and classifying how to replace them. When generating replacements, however, LLM-based systems did well in manually judged accuracy, completeness, and simplicity, though not in brevity.
conclusionThe PLABA track showed promise for using Large Language Models to adapt biomedical literature for the general public, while also highlighting their deficiencies and the need for improved automatic benchmarking tools.
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.