Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42258871›Full record

ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2026

Assessment of Artificial Intelligence-based Translation Tools for Emergency Department Discharge Instructions.

Estee Wu, Cassandra Mackey, Simi Jandu, Jennifer L Carey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The western journal of emergency 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Estee WuUpstate Medical University Norton College of Medicine, Syracuse, New York.
Cassandra MackeyUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Department of Emergency Medicine, Worcester, Massachusetts.
Simi JanduUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Department of Emergency Medicine, Worcester, Massachusetts.
Jennifer L CareyUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Department of Emergency Medicine, Worcester, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEmergency departments (ED) in the United States serve as a safety net for millions, including those with limited English proficiency (LEP). Eight percent of individuals living in the United States have LEP, placing them at risk for language barriers that can adversely affect the quality and safety of their care. Many hospitals lack language-concordant care, especially at the time of discharge. Miscommunication at discharge can lead to adverse health outcomes, including medication errors, poor compliance, and unnecessary return visits to the ED. Our objectives in this study were to evaluate the quality and safety of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated translations of physician-written, patient-specific ED discharge instructions and to assess performance across varying levels of instruction complexity.

methodsEmergency physicians wrote free-form discharge instructions, representing patient-specific guidance, which are typically provided at the time of ED discharge. Four topics were selected: abdominal pain; chest pain; wrist fracture; and vaginal bleeding in pregnancy. These instructions were intentionally developed to vary in linguistic complexity and were assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scales. Instructions were translated into Albanian, Brazilian Portuguese, and Vietnamese using the AI-based translation tools ChatGPT-4, Microsoft Copilot, and Google Translate. Translations were evaluated for semantic and syntactic accuracy. Criteria included adequacy, fluency, meaning, and severity on a 5-point scale (1 = lowest accuracy, 5 = highest accuracy). Preference and formality were rated on a 3-point scale (1 = lowest, 3 = highest). The primary outcome was the quality and safety of AI-generated translations of patient-specific discharge instructions. Secondary outcomes included the ability to handle varying instruction complexity. Professional medical translators primarily responsible for the written translation of medical text evaluated and scored the translations for accuracy and quality metrics.

resultsOverall adequacy, fluency, meaning, and severity scores were similar across models. ChatGPT-4 (3.79), Microsoft Copilot (3.60), and Google Translate (3.50), showed no statistically significant differences. Albanian translation was an exception, with ChatGPT-4 scoring significantly higher (3.75) than Google Translate (3.19) (P < .001). There were no other significant differences observed for Brazilian Portuguese or Vietnamese. ChatGPT-4 was also found to be the highest rated for Albanian and Brazilian Portuguese. Both Microsoft Copilot and Google Translate produced a total of five potentially harmful translation errors, whereas none were identified for ChatGPT-4.

conclusionMiscommunication during discharge can lead to negative patient outcomes. This study evaluated ChatGPT-4, Microsoft Copilot, and Google Translate in translating ED instructions into Albanian, Brazilian Portuguese, and Vietnamese. ChatGPT-4 performed best overall and produced no harmful translations, and significantly outperformed Google Translate in Albanian. While AI-based translation tools show promise, human oversight remains necessary to mitigate risks from translation inaccuracies.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCommunication BarriersEmergency Service, HospitalPatient DischargePatient Education as TopicTranslatingTranslationsFemaleHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID42258871
PMCPMC13246204

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.