Transforming Informed Consent Generation Using Large Language Models: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Informed consent forms (ICFs) for clinical trials have become increasingly complex, often hindering participant comprehension and engagement due to legal jargon and lengthy content. The recent advances in large language models (LLMs) present an opportunity to streamline the ICF creation process while improving readability, understandability, and actionability. objectives: This study aims to evaluate the performance of the Mistral 8x22B LLM in generating ICFs with improved readability, understandability, and actionability. Specifically, we evaluate the model's effectiveness in generating ICFs that are readable, understandable, and actionable while maintaining the accuracy and completeness. Methods: We processed 4 clinical trial protocols from the institutional review board of UMass Chan Medical School using the Mistral 8x22B model to generate key information sections of ICFs. A multidisciplinary team of 8 evaluators, including clinical researchers and health informaticians, assessed the generated ICFs against human-generated counterparts for completeness, accuracy, readability, understandability, and actionability. Readability, Understandability, and Actionability of Key Information indicators, which include 18 binary-scored items, were used to evaluate these aspects, with higher scores indicating greater accessibility, comprehensibility, and actionability of the information. Statistical analysis, including Wilcoxon rank sum tests and intraclass correlation coefficient calculations, was used to compare outputs. Results: LLM-generated ICFs demonstrated comparable performance to human-generated versions across key sections, with no significant differences in accuracy and completeness (P>.10). The LLM outperformed human-generated ICFs in readability (Readability, Understandability, and Actionability of Key Information score of 76.39% vs 66.67%; Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 7.95 vs 8.38) and understandability (90.63% vs 67.19%; P=.02). The LLM-generated content achieved a perfect score in actionability compared with the human-generated version (100% vs 0%; P<.001). Intraclass correlation coefficient for evaluator consistency was high at 0.83 (95% CI 0.64-1.03), indicating good reliability across assessments. Conclusions: The Mistral 8x22B LLM showed promising capabilities in enhancing the readability, understandability, and actionability of ICFs without sacrificing accuracy or completeness. LLMs present a scalable, efficient solution for ICF generation, potentially enhancing participant comprehension and consent in clinical trials.
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 | 0.110 | 0.193 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".