Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42622804›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Readability of AI-Generated Patient Visit Summaries in Orthopedic Surgery: Retrospective Analysis.

Edward Lee Major Iii, Vivek P Shah, Amber N Carroll, James R Goetz, Chaitu Malempati, Sameer Badarudeen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet 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.

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

6 authors.

Edward Lee Major IiiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, 740 S Limestone St, Lexington, KY, United States, 1 323 873 4940.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-0843-7780
Vivek P ShahDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, McLaren Regional Medical Center, Flint, MI, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2464-8242
Amber N CarrollDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6921-9540
James R GoetzDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, 740 S Limestone St, Lexington, KY, United States, 1 323 873 4940.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-2110-2077
Chaitu MalempatiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, 740 S Limestone St, Lexington, KY, United States, 1 323 873 4940.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-5257-9450
Sameer BadarudeenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, 740 S Limestone St, Lexington, KY, United States, 1 323 873 4940.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4399-3474

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patient visit summaries (PVS) are patient-facing documents intended to reinforce communication and promote patient education after clinical encounters. Despite national recommendations that patient education materials be written at or below a sixth-grade reading level, most orthopedic materials substantially exceed this threshold. Current visit summaries are also time-consuming to generate, lack personalization, and often fail to meet patient literacy needs. AI-based scribes can generate personalized PVS in real time directly from patient-provider conversations, offering a potential solution. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the readability of AI-generated PVS produced by a commercial AI scribe platform in an orthopedic surgery setting and determine their alignment with established literacy standards for patient-facing materials. Methods: A total of 1007 consecutive AI-generated PVS from an academic orthopedic surgery outpatient clinic between December 2023 and May 2024 were reviewed. Following standardized preprocessing, including restoration of original section headings and removal of diagnosis label headers, summaries identified as incomplete were excluded (n=25), yielding a final study cohort of 982 summaries. Readability was assessed using 5 validated indices: the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index. The proportions of PVS meeting the sixth- and eighth-grade benchmarks were calculated. Spearman's rank correlation (ρ) assessed associations between word count and readability metrics. The Kendall Coefficient of Concordance ( Results: Among 982 analyzed PVS, the mean FKGL was 9.3 (SD 1.2, 95% CI 9.2-9.4) and the mean FRES was 57.6 (SD 7.9, 95% CI 57.1-58.1), corresponding to "fairly difficult." Mean scores for secondary indices were 12.4 (SD 1.6) for GFI, 11.0 (SD 1.5) for CLI, and 12.4 (SD 1.2) for SMOG. Only 0.4% (4/982) of PVS met the sixth-grade benchmark and 14.2% (139/982) met the eighth-grade threshold. Word count was not significantly correlated with FKGL (ρ=0.012, Conclusions: In this orthopedic outpatient setting, AI-generated PVS consistently exceeded recommended patient literacy thresholds, with a mean ninth-grade reading level and only 14.2% of summaries meeting the eighth-grade standard. In the absence of a concurrent comparison group, the present study was not designed to evaluate improvement over traditional methods. These findings establish a quantitative readability baseline for AI scribe output in orthopedic surgery and highlight the need for algorithmic refinement, plain language optimization, and prospective patient comprehension testing to improve health communication.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceComprehensionHealth LiteracyOrthopedic ProceduresOrthopedicsHumansPatient Education as TopicRetrospective StudiesAIartificial intelligencehealth literacypatient education materialspatient visit summaryreadability

Identifiers

PMID42622804
PMCPMC13492186

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.