Desmedt Chloé P, Budts Werner, De Vos Maarten, Moons Philip
KU Leuven Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, PB7001, Leuven B-3000, Belgium.
Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 box 911, Leuven 3000, Belgium.
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2025 Sep 5;24(6):885-895. doi: 10.1093/eurjcn/zvaf074.
Science podcasts have proved to be valuable mediums for medical education and science dissemination. Tools adopting rapidly evolving technologies such as generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) now enable us to create podcasts in a matter of minutes (e.g. NotebookLM, Jellypod). However, GenAI entails challenges, such as hallucinations, which could compromise the trustworthiness of generated content. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the quality of AI-generated podcasts and their potential for science communication.
We conducted a mixed-method evaluation of 10 AI-generated podcasts for articles published in the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire and were invited for a video interview. They were not informed of the AI-nature of the podcast prior to evaluation. Only half of them were able to identify this aspect. The fact that the podcast was able to summarize key findings in an easily understandable and engaging manner was found to be a great asset. However, participants also indicated that the American style of the podcast took away from its credibility. Moreover, some podcasts contained inaccuracies, incorrect use of medical terms and mispronunciations, thereby compromising trustworthiness. Podcasts were found to be most appropriate for patients and the public but could be useful for researchers and healthcare professionals as well if they were tailored accordingly. Rigorous evaluation and transparency about the AI-generated nature of the podcast, referencing the original article and author acknowledgement were recommended.
AI-generated podcasts could be relevant additions to scientific journal articles and valuable alternatives for traditional science podcasts.
科学播客已被证明是医学教育和科学传播的宝贵媒介。采用生成式人工智能(GenAI)等快速发展技术的工具现在使我们能够在几分钟内创建播客(例如NotebookLM、Jellypod)。然而,GenAI带来了一些挑战,比如幻觉,这可能会损害生成内容的可信度。因此,本研究旨在探索人工智能生成的播客的质量及其在科学传播中的潜力。
我们对为《欧洲心血管护理杂志》发表的文章制作的10个人工智能生成的播客进行了混合方法评估。参与者被要求完成一份问卷,并被邀请参加视频访谈。在评估之前,他们未被告知播客的人工智能性质。只有一半的人能够识别这一方面。播客能够以易于理解且引人入胜的方式总结关键发现,这被认为是一项巨大的优势。然而,参与者也指出,播客的美式风格削弱了其可信度。此外,一些播客存在不准确之处、医学术语使用不当和发音错误,从而损害了可信度。播客被发现最适合患者和公众,但如果进行相应调整,对研究人员和医疗保健专业人员也可能有用。建议对播客的人工智能生成性质进行严格评估并保持透明,引用原始文章并注明作者。
人工智能生成的播客可以成为科学期刊文章的相关补充,也是传统科学播客的有价值替代品。