ArticleJMIR AI2026
Leveraging Large Language Models to Improve the Readability of German Online Medical Texts: Evaluation Study.
Article in JMIR AI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Who Reviews the Rewrite? Separating Patient-Initiated and Institutionally Curated Large Language Model Simplification.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Comparing the Accuracy of ChatGPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3, and Gemini 2.5 Flash in Answering Frequently Asked Questions About Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Quantitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
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
Background: Patient education materials (PEMs) found online are often written at a complexity level too high for the average reader, which can hinder understanding and informed decision-making. Large language models (LLMs) may offer a solution by simplifying complex medical texts. To date, little is known about how well LLMs can handle simplification tasks for German-language PEMs. Objective: The study aims to investigate whether LLMs can increase the readability of German online medical texts to a recommended level. Methods: A sample of 60 German texts originating from online medical resources was compiled. To improve the readability of these texts, four LLMs were selected and used for text simplification: ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4o, Microsoft Copilot, and Le Chat. Next, readability scores (Flesch reading ease [FRE] and Wiener Sachtextformel [4th Vienna Formula; WSTF]) of the original texts were computed and compared to the rephrased LLM versions. A Student t test for paired samples was used to test the reduction of readability scores, ideally to or lower than the eighth grade level. Results: Most of the original texts were rated as difficult to quite difficult (average WSTF 11.24, SD 1.29; FRE 35.92, SD 7.64). On average, the LLMs achieved the following average scores: ChatGPT-3.5 (WSTF 9.96, SD 1.52; FRE 45.04, SD 8.62), ChatGPT-4o (WSTF 10.6, SD 1.37; FRE 39.23, SD 7.45), Microsoft Copilot (WSTF 8.99, SD 1.10; FRE 49.0, SD 6.51), and Le Chat (WSTF 11.71, SD 1.47; FRE 33.72, SD 8.58). ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-40, and Microsoft Copilot showed a statistically significant improvement in readability. However, the t tests yielded no statistically significant results for the reduction of scores lower than the eighth grade level. Conclusions: LLMs can improve the readability of PEMs in German. This moderate improvement can support patients reading PEMs online. LLMs demonstrated their potential to make complex online medical text more accessible to a broader audience by increasing readability. This is the first study to evaluate this for German online medical texts.
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.