ArticleNorthern clinics of Istanbul2026
LuminaConsent: AI-driven standardization and quality enhancement of urological informed consent documentation.
Article in Northern clinics of Istanbul, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveInformed consent is the cornerstone of modern medical ethics, but current documentation systems negatively impact patient autonomy and clinical quality due to deficiencies in readability, comprehensibility, and standardization. These issues hinder patient participation and require innovative solutions. This study introduces the AI-powered LuminaConsent system to address standard deficiencies, comprehensibility issues, and efficiency constraints in urological informed consent documents.
methodsIn a three-armed comparative study, LuminaConsent (artificial intelligence), Turkish Urological Surgery Association standard forms, and expert-developed documents were evaluated in 10 urological procedures. The system is based on the RAG architecture, which uses OpenAI's GPT-4o-mini model and a special knowledge base consisting of 12 clinical publications. Three independent urology specialists conducted a blind evaluation using a 100-point scale across five areas: scientific content accuracy, patient communication effectiveness, quality of risk-benefit information, perioperative guidance, and legal-ethical compliance.
resultsLuminaConsent achieved higher performance with mean scores of 82.33 points (SD±4.2) versus 78.77 points (SD±6.1) for professional society standards and 57.43 points (SD±3.8) for specialist documentation, representing statistically significant improvements of 43.3% over specialist practices (p<0.001) and 4.5% over professional society standards (p<0.05). The system demonstrated consistent high-quality output across all procedures while generating comprehensive documentation within 96-180 seconds compared to traditional processes requiring multiple days.
conclusionLuminaConsent offers a pioneering model for systematic AI integration in clinical practice with its evidence-based content generation and bilingual processing capabilities. The findings support the potential to empower patient autonomy, reduce application variations, and improve ethical standards.
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.