• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

利用ChatGPT改善关于肿瘤学干预措施的Cochrane系统评价的简明语言总结的呈现方式:横断面研究

Using ChatGPT to Improve the Presentation of Plain Language Summaries of Cochrane Systematic Reviews About Oncology Interventions: Cross-Sectional Study.

作者信息

Šuto Pavičić Jelena, Marušić Ana, Buljan Ivan

机构信息

Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, University Hospital of Split, Spinciceva 1, Split, 21000, Croatia, 385 2155817.

Department of Research in Biomedicine in Health, Centre for Evidence-based Medicine, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.

出版信息

JMIR Cancer. 2025 Mar 19;11:e63347. doi: 10.2196/63347.

DOI:10.2196/63347
PMID:40106236
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11939027/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Plain language summaries (PLSs) of Cochrane systematic reviews are a simple format for presenting medical information to the lay public. This is particularly important in oncology, where patients have a more active role in decision-making. However, current PLS formats often exceed the readability requirements for the general population. There is still a lack of cost-effective and more automated solutions to this problem.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed whether a large language model (eg, ChatGPT) can improve the readability and linguistic characteristics of Cochrane PLSs about oncology interventions, without changing evidence synthesis conclusions.

METHODS

The dataset included 275 scientific abstracts and corresponding PLSs of Cochrane systematic reviews about oncology interventions. ChatGPT-4 was tasked to make each scientific abstract into a PLS using 3 prompts as follows: (1) rewrite this scientific abstract into a PLS to achieve a Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index of 6, (2) rewrite the PLS from prompt 1 so it is more emotional, and (3) rewrite this scientific abstract so it is easier to read and more appropriate for the lay audience. ChatGPT-generated PLSs were analyzed for word count, level of readability (SMOG index), and linguistic characteristics using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software and compared with the original PLSs. Two independent assessors reviewed the conclusiveness categories of ChatGPT-generated PLSs and compared them with original abstracts to evaluate consistency. The conclusion of each abstract about the efficacy and safety of the intervention was categorized as conclusive (positive/negative/equal), inconclusive, or unclear. Group comparisons were conducted using the Friedman nonparametric test.

RESULTS

ChatGPT-generated PLSs using the first prompt (SMOG index 6) were the shortest and easiest to read, with a median SMOG score of 8.2 (95% CI 8-8.4), compared with the original PLSs (median SMOG score 13.1, 95% CI 12.9-13.4). These PLSs had a median word count of 240 (95% CI 232-248) compared with the original PLSs' median word count of 364 (95% CI 339-388). The second prompt (emotional tone) generated PLSs with a median SMOG score of 11.4 (95% CI 11.1-12), again lower than the original PLSs. PLSs produced with the third prompt (write simpler and easier) had a median SMOG score of 8.7 (95% CI 8.4-8.8). ChatGPT-generated PLSs across all prompts demonstrated reduced analytical tone and increased authenticity, clout, and emotional tone compared with the original PLSs. Importantly, the conclusiveness categorization of the original abstracts was unchanged in the ChatGPT-generated PLSs.

CONCLUSIONS

ChatGPT can be a valuable tool in simplifying PLSs as medically related formats for lay audiences. More research is needed, including oversight mechanisms to ensure that the information is accurate, reliable, and culturally relevant for different audiences.

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a830/11939027/d51cbbb16cbe/cancer-v11-e63347-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a830/11939027/42948dc5de58/cancer-v11-e63347-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a830/11939027/d51cbbb16cbe/cancer-v11-e63347-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a830/11939027/42948dc5de58/cancer-v11-e63347-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a830/11939027/d51cbbb16cbe/cancer-v11-e63347-g002.jpg
摘要

背景

Cochrane系统评价的简明语言摘要(PLS)是一种向普通公众呈现医学信息的简单形式。这在肿瘤学领域尤为重要,因为患者在决策中发挥着更积极的作用。然而,当前的PLS格式往往超出了普通人群的可读性要求。针对这一问题,仍然缺乏经济高效且更自动化的解决方案。

目的

本研究评估了大语言模型(如ChatGPT)能否在不改变证据综合结论的情况下,提高Cochrane关于肿瘤学干预措施的PLS的可读性和语言特征。

方法

数据集包括275篇关于肿瘤学干预措施的Cochrane系统评价的科学摘要及相应的PLS。ChatGPT-4被要求使用以下3个提示将每篇科学摘要转化为PLS:(1)将此科学摘要改写为PLS,使其简化语言可读性量表(SMOG)指数达到6;(2)改写提示1中的PLS,使其更具情感色彩;(3)改写此科学摘要,使其更易阅读且更适合普通受众。使用语言查询与字数统计(LIWC)软件对ChatGPT生成的PLS进行字数、可读性水平(SMOG指数)和语言特征分析,并与原始PLS进行比较。两名独立评估者审查ChatGPT生成的PLS的结论类别,并与原始摘要进行比较以评估一致性。将每篇摘要关于干预措施有效性和安全性的结论分类为确定性(阳性/阴性/相等)、不确定性或不明确。使用Friedman非参数检验进行组间比较。

结果

使用第一个提示(SMOG指数6)生成的ChatGPT PLS最短且最易阅读,中位数SMOG评分为8.2(95%CI 8 - 8.4),而原始PLS的中位数SMOG评分为13.1(95%CI 12.9 - 13.4)。这些PLS的中位数字数为240(95%CI 232 - 248),而原始PLS的中位数字数为364(95%CI 339 - 388)。第二个提示(情感基调)生成的PLS中位数SMOG评分为11.4(95%CI 11.1 - 12),同样低于原始PLS。使用第三个提示(写得更简单易懂)生成的PLS中位数SMOG评分为

相似文献

1
Using ChatGPT to Improve the Presentation of Plain Language Summaries of Cochrane Systematic Reviews About Oncology Interventions: Cross-Sectional Study.利用ChatGPT改善关于肿瘤学干预措施的Cochrane系统评价的简明语言总结的呈现方式:横断面研究
JMIR Cancer. 2025 Mar 19;11:e63347. doi: 10.2196/63347.
2
Linguistic analysis of plain language summaries and corresponding scientific summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews about oncology interventions.关于肿瘤学干预措施的Cochrane系统评价的简明语言摘要及相应科学摘要的语言分析。
Cancer Med. 2023 May;12(9):10950-10960. doi: 10.1002/cam4.5825. Epub 2023 Mar 23.
3
Conclusiveness, linguistic characteristics and readability of Cochrane plain language summaries of intervention reviews: a cross-sectional study.干预性综述 Cochrane 通俗易懂摘要的结论一致性、语言特点和易读性:一项横断面研究。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022 Sep 10;22(1):240. doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01721-7.
4
Languages for different health information readers: multitrait-multimethod content analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews textual summary formats.不同健康信息读者适用的语言:考科蓝系统评价文本摘要格式的多特质-多方法内容分析。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Apr 5;19(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0716-x.
5
Jargon and Readability in Plain Language Summaries of Health Research: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.健康研究简明语言摘要中的术语与可读性:横断面观察性研究
J Med Internet Res. 2025 Jan 13;27:e50862. doi: 10.2196/50862.
6
Conclusiveness, readability and textual characteristics of plain language summaries from medical and non-medical organizations: a cross-sectional study.医学和非医学组织提供的通俗易懂摘要的结论性、可读性和文本特征:一项横断面研究。
Sci Rep. 2024 Mar 12;14(1):6016. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-56727-6.
7
What Author Instructions Do Health Journals Provide for Writing Plain Language Summaries? A Scoping Review.健康期刊对撰写通俗易懂的摘要提供了哪些作者指南?一项范围综述。
Patient. 2023 Jan;16(1):31-42. doi: 10.1007/s40271-022-00606-7. Epub 2022 Oct 27.
8
Optimizing Readability and Format of Plain Language Summaries for Medical Research Articles: Cross-sectional Survey Study.优化医学研究文章的平实语言摘要的可读性和格式:横断面调查研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Jan 11;24(1):e22122. doi: 10.2196/22122.
9
Artificial intelligence as a modality to enhance the readability of neurosurgical literature for patients.人工智能作为一种提高神经外科文献对患者可读性的方式。
J Neurosurg. 2024 Nov 8;142(4):1189-1195. doi: 10.3171/2024.6.JNS24617. Print 2025 Apr 1.
10
Bridging the Gap Between Urological Research and Patient Understanding: The Role of Large Language Models in Automated Generation of Layperson's Summaries.弥合泌尿科研究与患者理解之间的差距:大型语言模型在生成非专业人士摘要方面的作用。
Urol Pract. 2023 Sep;10(5):436-443. doi: 10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000428. Epub 2023 Jul 5.

引用本文的文献

1
Editor's view: What makes science successful?编辑观点:是什么让科学取得成功?
J Glob Health. 2025 Jul 21;15:01005. doi: 10.7189/jogh.15.01005.

本文引用的文献

1
Hallucination Rates and Reference Accuracy of ChatGPT and Bard for Systematic Reviews: Comparative Analysis.幻觉发生率和 ChatGPT 与 Bard 用于系统评价的参考准确性:比较分析。
J Med Internet Res. 2024 May 22;26:e53164. doi: 10.2196/53164.
2
Conclusiveness, readability and textual characteristics of plain language summaries from medical and non-medical organizations: a cross-sectional study.医学和非医学组织提供的通俗易懂摘要的结论性、可读性和文本特征:一项横断面研究。
Sci Rep. 2024 Mar 12;14(1):6016. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-56727-6.
3
ChatGPT applications in medical, dental, pharmacy, and public health education: A descriptive study highlighting the advantages and limitations.
ChatGPT在医学、牙科、药学和公共卫生教育中的应用:一项突出优势与局限的描述性研究。
Narra J. 2023 Apr;3(1):e103. doi: 10.52225/narra.v3i1.103. Epub 2023 Mar 29.
4
Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines.人工智能干预随机对照试验与 CONSORT-AI 报告指南的一致性。
Nat Commun. 2024 Feb 22;15(1):1619. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-45355-3.
5
Large language models: a new chapter in digital health.大语言模型:数字健康的新篇章。
Lancet Digit Health. 2024 Jan;6(1):e1. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00254-6.
6
New Frontiers in Health Literacy: Using ChatGPT to Simplify Health Information for People in the Community.健康素养新前沿:利用 ChatGPT 简化社区人群的健康信息。
J Gen Intern Med. 2024 Mar;39(4):573-577. doi: 10.1007/s11606-023-08469-w. Epub 2023 Nov 8.
7
The potential role of ChatGPT and artificial intelligence in anatomy education: a conversation with ChatGPT.ChatGPT与人工智能在解剖学教育中的潜在作用:与ChatGPT的对话
Surg Radiol Anat. 2023 Oct;45(10):1321-1329. doi: 10.1007/s00276-023-03229-1. Epub 2023 Aug 16.
8
A new era in Internet interventions: The advent of Chat-GPT and AI-assisted therapist guidance.互联网干预的新时代:Chat-GPT与人工智能辅助治疗师指导的出现。
Internet Interv. 2023 Apr 11;32:100621. doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2023.100621. eCollection 2023 Apr.
9
ChatGPT in medicine: an overview of its applications, advantages, limitations, future prospects, and ethical considerations.医学领域的ChatGPT:其应用、优势、局限性、未来前景及伦理考量概述
Front Artif Intell. 2023 May 4;6:1169595. doi: 10.3389/frai.2023.1169595. eCollection 2023.
10
The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles.ChatGPT在科学交流中的作用:撰写更优质的科学综述文章。
Am J Cancer Res. 2023 Apr 15;13(4):1148-1154. eCollection 2023.