Using artificial intelligence to expedite and enhance plain language summary abstract writing of scientific content.

IF 3.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES JAMIA Open Pub Date : 2025-04-03 eCollection Date: 2025-04-01 DOI:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaf023
David McMinn, Tom Grant, Laura DeFord-Watts, Veronica Porkess, Margarita Lens, Christopher Rapier, Wilson Q Joe, Timothy A Becker, Walter Bender
{"title":"Using artificial intelligence to expedite and enhance plain language summary abstract writing of scientific content.","authors":"David McMinn, Tom Grant, Laura DeFord-Watts, Veronica Porkess, Margarita Lens, Christopher Rapier, Wilson Q Joe, Timothy A Becker, Walter Bender","doi":"10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaf023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the capacity of a bespoke artificial intelligence (AI) process to help medical writers efficiently generate quality plain language summary abstracts (PLSAs).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Three independent studies were conducted. In Studies 1 and 3, original scientific abstracts (OSAs; <i>n</i> = 48, <i>n</i> = 2) and corresponding PLSAs written by medical writers versus bespoke AI were assessed using standard readability metrics. Study 2 compared time and effort of medical writers (<i>n</i> = 10) drafting PLSAs starting with an OSA (<i>n</i> = 6) versus the output of 1 bespoke AI (<i>n</i> = 6) and 1 non-bespoke AI (<i>n</i> = 6) process. These PLSAs (<i>n</i> = 72) were assessed by subject matter experts (SMEs; <i>n</i> = 3) for accuracy and physicians (<i>n</i> = 7) for patient suitability. Lastly, in Study 3, medical writers (<i>n</i> = 22) and patients/patient advocates (<i>n </i>= 5) compared quality of medical writer and bespoke AI-generated PLSAs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In Study 1, bespoke AI PLSAs were easier to read than medical writer PLSAs across all readability metrics (<i>P</i> <.01). In Study 2, bespoke AI output saved medical writers >40% in time for PLSA creation and required less effort than unassisted writing. SME-assessed quality was higher for AI-assisted PLSAs, and physicians preferred bespoke AI-generated outputs for patient use. In Study 3, bespoke AI PLSAs were more readable and rated of higher quality than medical writer PLSAs.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The bespoke AI process may enhance access to health information by helping medical writers produce PLSAs of scientific content that are fit for purpose.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The bespoke AI process can more efficiently create better quality, more readable first draft PLSAs versus medical writer-generated PLSAs.</p>","PeriodicalId":36278,"journal":{"name":"JAMIA Open","volume":"8 2","pages":"ooaf023"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11967854/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMIA Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaf023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To assess the capacity of a bespoke artificial intelligence (AI) process to help medical writers efficiently generate quality plain language summary abstracts (PLSAs).

Materials and methods: Three independent studies were conducted. In Studies 1 and 3, original scientific abstracts (OSAs; n = 48, n = 2) and corresponding PLSAs written by medical writers versus bespoke AI were assessed using standard readability metrics. Study 2 compared time and effort of medical writers (n = 10) drafting PLSAs starting with an OSA (n = 6) versus the output of 1 bespoke AI (n = 6) and 1 non-bespoke AI (n = 6) process. These PLSAs (n = 72) were assessed by subject matter experts (SMEs; n = 3) for accuracy and physicians (n = 7) for patient suitability. Lastly, in Study 3, medical writers (n = 22) and patients/patient advocates (n = 5) compared quality of medical writer and bespoke AI-generated PLSAs.

Results: In Study 1, bespoke AI PLSAs were easier to read than medical writer PLSAs across all readability metrics (P <.01). In Study 2, bespoke AI output saved medical writers >40% in time for PLSA creation and required less effort than unassisted writing. SME-assessed quality was higher for AI-assisted PLSAs, and physicians preferred bespoke AI-generated outputs for patient use. In Study 3, bespoke AI PLSAs were more readable and rated of higher quality than medical writer PLSAs.

Discussion: The bespoke AI process may enhance access to health information by helping medical writers produce PLSAs of scientific content that are fit for purpose.

Conclusion: The bespoke AI process can more efficiently create better quality, more readable first draft PLSAs versus medical writer-generated PLSAs.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用人工智能加快和提高科学内容的简明语言摘要写作。
目的:评估定制人工智能(AI)流程的能力,以帮助医学作者高效地生成高质量的简明语言摘要(PLSAs)。材料和方法:进行了3项独立研究。在研究1和3中,原始科学摘要(osa;n = 48, n = 2),并使用标准可读性指标评估医学作者与定制人工智能撰写的相应plsa。研究2比较了从OSA (n = 6)开始起草plsa (n = 10)的医学作者(n = 10)与1个定制AI (n = 6)和1个非定制AI (n = 6)流程的产出所花费的时间和精力。这些公共服务机构(n = 72)由主题专家(中小企业;准确性(N = 3)和患者适宜性(N = 7)。最后,在研究3中,医学作者(n = 22)和患者/患者倡导者(n = 5)比较了医学作者和定制ai生成的plsa的质量。结果:在研究1中,在所有可读性指标上,定制AI PLSA比医学写作PLSA更容易阅读(PLSA创建时间为40%),并且比无辅助写作所需的工作量更少。人工智能辅助plsa的sme评估质量更高,医生更喜欢定制人工智能生成的输出供患者使用。在研究3中,定制的AI plsa比医学写作plsa更具可读性,质量也更高。讨论:定制的人工智能过程可以通过帮助医学作者制作适合目的的科学内容的公共服务程序来增强对健康信息的获取。结论:与医学作者生成的plsa相比,定制AI流程可以更有效地创建质量更好、更具可读性的plsa初稿。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JAMIA Open
JAMIA Open Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.80%
发文量
102
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Establishing the Digital Health Equity & Literacy Program (D-HELP): a student-led initiative to address digital health literacy gaps among emergency department patients at rush. Assessment of the adequacy of the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) Genomics standard for the representation of somatic testing reports. Interpretability of an FDA-authorized AI/ML sepsis diagnostic tool improved by SHAP values. Electronic health record use factors linked to efficiency and productivity: an explainable machine learning analysis. Correction to: Biomedical data repositories require governance for artificial intelligence/machine learning applications at every step.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1