ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2026
Disparate language and model effects on AI-based translation and recognition of genetic conditions.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly prevalent. Patients and clinicians may use AI-based tools in many different languages.
objectiveTo investigate AI translation tools for descriptions of genetic conditions and how AI identification of genetic conditions is affected by translations. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe used Neural machine translation (NMT) and large language-model (LLM) translation to translate descriptions of 40 genetic conditions into 191 and 93 languages, respectively. Excluding translations retaining English medical terms verbatim, we respectively focused on 139 and 70 languages. After assessing translations, we assessed the ability of 3 proprietary and 3 open-weight general LLMs to identify conditions in the translations. We analyzed how accuracy was affected by the conditions' prevalence in the literature, and attributes of the languages (the script, language family, and prevalence of the language in training sources). We also investigated adaptive translation for select languages.
resultsWe found significant differences in condition identification based on the translation method, condition, language, and prediction model. The accuracy of some models was more affected than others by factors like the conditions' literature prevalence, language script, family, and language prevalence. Adaptive translation for select languages did not improve translations or diagnostic accuracy with the 3 tested LLMs. However, further analysis with 1 language showed that this approach was more effective with smaller LLMs.
conclusionsAI-based translation has variable performance, which can affect the ability of AI models to recognize genetic conditions. These findings should inform safe medical AI use to support consistent performance in different languages.
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.