Assessing the Readability of Medical Documents: A Ranking Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of electronic health record (EHR) systems with patient engagement capabilities, including viewing, downloading, and transmitting health information, has recently grown tremendously. However, using these resources to engage patients in managing their own health remains challenging due to the complex and technical nature of the EHR narratives. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop a machine learning-based system to assess readability levels of complex documents such as EHR notes. METHODS: We collected difficulty ratings of EHR notes and Wikipedia articles using crowdsourcing from 90 readers. We built a supervised model to assess readability based on relative orders of text difficulty using both surface text features and word embeddings. We evaluated system performance using the Kendall coefficient of concordance against human ratings. RESULTS: Our system achieved significantly higher concordance (.734) with human annotators than did a baseline using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, a widely adopted readability formula (.531). The improvement was also consistent across different disease topics. This method's concordance with an individual human user's ratings was also higher than the concordance between different human annotators (.658). CONCLUSIONS: We explored methods to automatically assess the readability levels of clinical narratives. Our ranking-based system using simple textual features and easy-to-learn word embeddings outperformed a widely used readability formula. Our ranking-based method can predict relative difficulties of medical documents. It is not constrained to a predefined set of readability levels, a common design in many machine learning-based systems. Furthermore, the feature set does not rely on complex processing of the documents. One potential application of our readability ranking is personalization, allowing patients to better accommodate their own background knowledge.
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 | 0.006 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".