ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Evaluating large language models for simplifying non-English medical consent with clinician involvement.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Informed consent forms are essential for protecting patient rights, but are often difficult to understand, especially in non-English settings where formal language and long, context-dependent sentences hinder comprehension. This study evaluated whether large language models (LLMs) can simplify Chinese language surgical consent forms and whether clinician revision can further improve the output. Official forms from nine hospitals were used to create three versions of each document: the original, an LLM-simplified version, and a clinician-revised version. We assessed text structure, readability, content quality, and layperson comprehension using quantitative metrics and expert ratings. The LLM version improved readability and comprehension but reduced content quality, particularly risk information. Clinician revision restored accuracy while maintaining clarity and achieved the highest comprehension scores. Linear mixed effects modeling confirmed these trends. These findings highlight both the impact of LLM-based simplification and the value of human AI collaboration in patient communication.
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.