Evaluation of Large Language Models in Tailoring Educational Content for Cancer Survivors and Their Caregivers: Quality Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Cancer survivors and their caregivers, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds with limited health literacy or racial and ethnic minorities facing language barriers, are at a disproportionately higher risk of experiencing symptom burdens from cancer and its treatments. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising avenue for generating concise, linguistically appropriate, and accessible educational materials tailored to these populations. However, there is limited research evaluating how effectively LLMs perform in creating targeted content for individuals with diverse literacy and language needs. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the overall performance of LLMs in generating tailored educational content for cancer survivors and their caregivers with limited health literacy or language barriers, compare the performances of 3 Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT) models (ie, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, and GPT-4 Turbo; OpenAI), and examine how different prompting approaches influence the quality of the generated content. Methods: We selected 30 topics from national guidelines on cancer care and education. GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, and GPT-4 Turbo were used to generate tailored content of up to 250 words at a 6th-grade reading level, with translations into Spanish and Chinese for each topic. Two distinct prompting approaches (textual and bulleted) were applied and evaluated. Nine oncology experts evaluated 360 generated responses based on predetermined criteria: word limit, reading level, and quality assessment (ie, clarity, accuracy, relevance, completeness, and comprehensibility). ANOVA (analysis of variance) or chi-square analyses were used to compare differences among the various GPT models and prompts. Results: Overall, LLMs showed excellent performance in tailoring educational content, with 74.2% (267/360) adhering to the specified word limit and achieving an average quality assessment score of 8.933 out of 10. However, LLMs showed moderate performance in reading level, with 41.1% (148/360) of content failing to meet the sixth-grade reading level. LLMs demonstrated strong translation capabilities, achieving an accuracy of 96.7% (87/90) for Spanish and 81.1% (73/90) for Chinese translations. Common errors included imprecise scopes, inaccuracies in definitions, and content that lacked actionable recommendations. The more advanced GPT-4 family models showed better overall performance compared to GPT-3.5 Turbo. Prompting GPTs to produce bulleted-format content was likely to result in better educational content compared with textual-format content. Conclusions: All 3 LLMs demonstrated high potential for delivering multilingual, concise, and low health literacy educational content for cancer survivors and caregivers who face limited literacy or language barriers. GPT-4 family models were notably more robust. While further refinement is required to ensure simpler reading levels and fully comprehensive information, these findings highlight LLMs as an emerging tool for bridging gaps in cancer education and advancing health equity. Future research should integrate expert feedback, additional prompt engineering strategies, and specialized training data to optimize content accuracy and accessibility.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,236 | 0,424 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».