ArticleInternational journal of retina and vitreous2026
Large language model based simplification of ophthalmological clinical and ancillary results for patient readability.
Article in International journal of retina and vitreous, 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
backgroundOphthalmological reports are often written at a complexity level that exceeds the reading ability of many patients. Large language models (LLMs) may help simplify these texts, but their performance depends on prompt design and must preserve clinical fidelity. This study evaluated whether different prompting strategies improve the readability and safety of simplified ophthalmological reports.
methodsWe analyzed 443 de-identified reports from a tele-ophthalmology platform, including 280 retinal fundus and 163 ocular ultrasound reports. Each report was simplified by four LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4.0, Gemini, and Copilot) using three prompts: a basic command, a patient-oriented prompt, and a targeted 7th-grade reading level prompt. Readability was measured with the average Readability Grade Level (aRGL). A representative eligible subset of the generated texts was independently evaluated by two third-year ophthalmology residents, and each selected response underwent independent review by both evaluators, with disagreements resolved by a board-certified retina ophthalmologist. Outcomes included factual accuracy, information completeness, and potential for harm.
resultsThe original reports were highly complex, with a median aRGL of 13.8 overall, 11.6 for fundus reports, and 15.4 for ocular ultrasound reports. All LLMs improved readability scores to varying degrees. Prompt engineering was a major determinant of performance, and the targeted 7th-grade prompt produced the best results across models. Copilot, Gemini, and GPT-4.0 achieved median aRGL values closest to the recommended patient-facing reading level, while GPT-3.5 showed weaker performance in some comparisons. Clinical validation showed substantial agreement between raters (kappa range, 0.70-0.97). After adjudication, 91% of simplified texts were factually accurate, 86% retained all critical information, and 95% showed no potential for harm.
conclusionLLMs can simplify ophthalmological reports while preserving clinical fidelity, but performance depends strongly on prompt specificity. These tools show promise for patient-facing communication, although human oversight remains essential.
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.