Comparative Readability Analysis of Online Patient Education Resources on Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health recommend a readability grade level of less than 7th grade for patient directed information. In this study, we use validated readability metrics to analyze patient information from prominent websites pertaining to ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. METHODS: The terms "Crohn's Disease," "Ulcerative Colitis," and "Inflammatory Bowel Disease" were queried on Google and Bing. Websites containing patient education material were saved as a text file and then modified through expungement of medical terminology that was described within the text. Modified text was then divided into subsections that were analyzed using six validated readability scales. RESULTS: None of the websites analyzed in this study achieved an estimated reading grade level below the recommended 7th grade. The median readability grade level (after modification) was 11.5 grade levels for both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. The treatment subsection required the highest level of education with a median readability grade of 12th grade (range of 6.9 to 17). CONCLUSION: Readability of online patient education material from the analyzed popular websites far exceeds the recommended level of being less than 7th grade. Patient education resources should be revised to achieve wider health literacy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".