ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2026
Optimizing the key information section of informed consent documents in biomedical research: A multi-phased study using large language models.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Informed consent is a cornerstone of ethical research, but the lack of widely accepted standards for the key information (KI) section in informed consent documents (ICDs) creates challenges in institutional review board (IRB) reviews and participant comprehension. This study explored the use of GPT-4o, a large language model (collectively, AI), to generate standardized KI sections. Methods: An AI tool was developed to interpret and generate KI content from ICDs. The evaluation involved a multi-phased process where IRB subject matter experts, principal investigators (PIs), and IRB reviewers assessed the AI output for accuracy, differentiation between standard care and research, appropriate information prioritization, and structural coherence. Results: Iterative refinements improved the AI's accuracy and clarity, with initial assessments highlighting factual errors that decreased over time. Many PIs found the AI-generated sections comparable to their own and expressed a high likelihood of using the tool for future drafts. Blinded evaluations by IRB reviewers highlighted the AI tool's strengths in describing study benefits and maintaining readability. However, the findings underscore the need for further improvements, particularly in ensuring accurate risk descriptions, to enhance regulatory compliance and IRB reviewer confidence. Conclusions: The AI tool shows promise in enhancing the consistency and efficiency of KI section drafting in ICDs. However, it requires ongoing refinement and human oversight to fully comply with regulatory and institutional standards. Collaboration between AI and human experts is essential to maximize benefits while maintaining high ethical and accuracy standards in informed consent processes.
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.