ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Large Language Model Simplification of Open Access Pediatric Strabismus Literature: Cross-Sectional Validation of Readability and Clinical Fidelity.
Article in JMIR formative research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Peer-reviewed medical literature consistently violates established health literacy readability targets, creating a gap that effectively excludes patients and caregivers from accessing evidence-based information. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate whether a large language model (LLM) can generate plain-language summaries of pediatric strabismus literature while preserving clinical fidelity and meeting established health literacy readability targets. Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed 85 open access, peer-reviewed pediatric strabismus articles published between 2022 and 2025, stratified by strabismus subtype, surgical relevance, and publication type. Full-text articles were processed using DeepSeek-V3 (DeepSeek) via a structured prompt, which instructed the model to provide a simplified summary meeting the following requirements for each article: a seventh-grade or lower reading level, a maximum length of 800 words, and strict preservation of medically significant data. Primary outcomes were readability scores measured by the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) indices. Secondary outcomes included clinical fidelity, which was independently assessed by 2 fellowship-trained pediatric strabismus specialists. Results: Baseline articles demonstrated a mean FKGL score of 15.79 (SD 1.53) and a mean SMOG score of 14.41 (SD 1.09). Following LLM simplification, the mean FKGL score significantly decreased from 15.79 (SD 1.53) to 7.84 (SD 1.30), representing a mean difference of 7.95 (95% CI 7.52-8.38; P<.001). Similarly, the mean SMOG score decreased from 14.41 (SD 1.09) to 7.68 (SD 0.94), representing a mean difference of 6.73 (95% CI 6.42-7.04; P<.001). Postsimplification readability did not differ significantly by strabismus subtype or surgical relevance (all adjusted P>.05). However, case reports retained slightly higher FKGL scores (mean 8.35, SD 0.89) compared to reviews (mean 7.89, SD 1.37) and original research (mean 7.48, SD 1.40) (adjusted P=.003). Out of the 85 summaries, clinical fidelity was rated good in 81 (95.29%), moderate in 4 (4.71%; these were exclusively summaries of review articles), and poor in 0 (0%). Conclusions: DeepSeek-V3 effectively reduced the reading level of complex pediatric strabismus literature by approximately 8 grade levels, achieving National Institutes of Health-recommended eighth-grade or lower targets without compromising clinical accuracy. When integrated with clinician oversight, LLM-generated summaries offer a scalable, equitable tool to enhance health literacy and support shared decision-making for patients and caregivers.
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.