Using ChatGPT to Improve the Presentation of Plain Language Summaries of Cochrane Systematic Reviews About Oncology Interventions: Cross-Sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Plain language summaries (PLSs) of Cochrane systematic reviews are a simple format for presenting medical information to the lay public. This is particularly important in oncology, where patients have a more active role in decision-making. However, current PLS formats often exceed the readability requirements for the general population. There is still a lack of cost-effective and more automated solutions to this problem. Objective: This study assessed whether a large language model (eg, ChatGPT) can improve the readability and linguistic characteristics of Cochrane PLSs about oncology interventions, without changing evidence synthesis conclusions. Methods: The dataset included 275 scientific abstracts and corresponding PLSs of Cochrane systematic reviews about oncology interventions. ChatGPT-4 was tasked to make each scientific abstract into a PLS using 3 prompts as follows: (1) rewrite this scientific abstract into a PLS to achieve a Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index of 6, (2) rewrite the PLS from prompt 1 so it is more emotional, and (3) rewrite this scientific abstract so it is easier to read and more appropriate for the lay audience. ChatGPT-generated PLSs were analyzed for word count, level of readability (SMOG index), and linguistic characteristics using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software and compared with the original PLSs. Two independent assessors reviewed the conclusiveness categories of ChatGPT-generated PLSs and compared them with original abstracts to evaluate consistency. The conclusion of each abstract about the efficacy and safety of the intervention was categorized as conclusive (positive/negative/equal), inconclusive, or unclear. Group comparisons were conducted using the Friedman nonparametric test. Results: ChatGPT-generated PLSs using the first prompt (SMOG index 6) were the shortest and easiest to read, with a median SMOG score of 8.2 (95% CI 8-8.4), compared with the original PLSs (median SMOG score 13.1, 95% CI 12.9-13.4). These PLSs had a median word count of 240 (95% CI 232-248) compared with the original PLSs' median word count of 364 (95% CI 339-388). The second prompt (emotional tone) generated PLSs with a median SMOG score of 11.4 (95% CI 11.1-12), again lower than the original PLSs. PLSs produced with the third prompt (write simpler and easier) had a median SMOG score of 8.7 (95% CI 8.4-8.8). ChatGPT-generated PLSs across all prompts demonstrated reduced analytical tone and increased authenticity, clout, and emotional tone compared with the original PLSs. Importantly, the conclusiveness categorization of the original abstracts was unchanged in the ChatGPT-generated PLSs. Conclusions: ChatGPT can be a valuable tool in simplifying PLSs as medically related formats for lay audiences. More research is needed, including oversight mechanisms to ensure that the information is accurate, reliable, and culturally relevant for different audiences.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».