MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415850071 · doi:10.3138/jvme-2025-0067

Evaluation of Readability Scores of Discharge Summaries Written by Senior Veterinary Students and Clinical Instructors on a Primary Care Rotation

2025· article· en· W4415850071 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReadabilityReading (process)Grade levelHealth literacyPresentation (obstetrics)Health carePrimary careMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health literacy, the ability of patients to understand and make informed decisions regarding health care, is an integral determinant of compliance and satisfaction with care. Readability of patient-oriented materials is a major factor affecting health literacy. As a result, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Medical Association (AMA) have published recommendations that public-oriented health education materials be written at a maximum of a sixth-grade equivalent reading level. Animal caregivers' health literacy likely has a similarly significant impact on animal care and welfare. Current literature, however, shows that many veterinary education materials are written at higher than recommended levels. Educating veterinary students in the utility and methodology of creating readable medical discharge documents is paramount to addressing this issue. In this study, student-created discharge documents and clinical instructor edits were collected from medical record software at the beginning and conclusion of the clinical year. Discharge documents were categorized by the patient's reason for presentation (wellness, non-wellness, or procedural) as well as whether the recipient had advanced veterinary training. Using a readability calculator, the Flesch-Kincaid (F-K) readability score was reported for each document. Mean readability scores for both groups exceeded the recommended sixth-grade reading level. No significant difference was found between student and instructor scores for all document types at both time points. Wellness documents had the highest mean readability scores, and procedural documents had the lowest. Student scores collectively increased at the second time point, with non-wellness documents exhibiting the largest degree of disparity between the two time points. The recipient's degree of veterinary training did not significantly affect readability scores.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.433 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education→Same topicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility→French-language works237,207→