Utilizing AI-Generated Plain Language Summaries to Enhance Interdisciplinary Understanding of Ophthalmology Notes: A Randomized Trial
Tailor, P. D.; D'Souza, H. S.; Castillejo Becerra, C.; Dahl, H. M.; Patel, N. R.; Kaplan, T. M.; Kohli, D.; Bothun, E. D.; Mohney, B. G.; Tooley, A. A.; Baratz, K. H.; Iezzi, R.; Barkmeier, A. J.; Bakri, S. J.; Roddy, G. W.; Hodge, D.; Sit, A. J.; Starr, M. R.; Chen, J. J.
Show abstract
BackgroundSpecialized terminology employed by ophthalmologists creates a comprehension barrier for non-ophthalmology providers, compromising interdisciplinary communication and patient care. Current solutions such as manual note simplification are impractical or inadequate. Large language models (LLMs) present a potential low-burden approach to translating ophthalmology documentation into accessible language. MethodsThis prospective, randomized trial evaluated the addition of LLM-generated plain language summaries (PLSs) to standard ophthalmology notes (SONs). Participants included non-ophthalmology providers and ophthalmologists. The study assessed: (1) non-ophthalmology providers comprehension and satisfaction with either the SON (control) or SON+PLS (intervention), (2) ophthalmologists evaluation of PLS accuracy, safety, and time burden, and (3) objective semantic and linguistic quality of PLSs. Results85% of non-ophthalmology providers (n=362, 33% response rate) preferred the PLS to SON. Non-ophthalmology providers reported enhanced diagnostic understanding (p=0.012), increased note detail satisfaction (p<0.001), and improved explanation clarity (p<0.001) for notes containing a PLS. The addition of a PLS narrowed comprehension gaps between providers who were comfortable and uncomfortable with ophthalmology terminology at baseline (intergroup difference p<0.001 to p>0.05). PLS semantic analysis demonstrated high meaning preservation (BERTScore mean F1 score: 0.85) with greater readability (Flesch Reading Ease: 51.8 vs. 43.6, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 10.7 vs. 11.9). Ophthalmologists (n=489, 84% response rate) reported high PLS accuracy (90% "a great deal") with minimal review time burden (94.9% [≤] 1 minute). PLS error rate on initial ophthalmologist review and editing was 26%, and 15% on independent ophthalmologist over-read of edited PLSs. 84.9% of identified errors were deemed low risk for patient harm and 0% had a risk of severe harm/death. ConclusionsLLM-generated plain language summaries enhance accessibility and utility of ophthalmology notes for non-ophthalmology providers while maintaining high semantic fidelity and improving readability. PLS error rates underscore the need for careful implementation and ongoing safety monitoring in clinical practice.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating the Performance of ChatGPT in Ophthalmology: An Analysis of its Successes and Shortcomings 94%
- Using electronic health record data to determine the safety of aqueous humor liquid biopsies for molecular analyses 94%
- Validity and Reliability of the CVI Range for Clinical Research (CVI Range-CR): Baseline and One-Year Results 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Identification of Risk Factors for Glaucoma Progression in Free-Text Clinical Notes using a Local Small Language Model 95%
- The learning curve of murine subretinal injection among clinically trained ophthalmic surgeons 94%
- Relating Standardized Automated Perimetry Performed with Stimulus Sizes III and V in Eyes With Field Loss due to Glaucoma and NAION 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance of DeepSeek-R1 in Ophthalmology: An Evaluation of Clinical Decision-Making and Cost-Effectiveness 96%
- Unveiling the Clinical Incapabilities: A Benchmarking Study of GPT-4V(ision) for Ophthalmic Multimodal Image Analysis 95%
- Risk Model for Intraoperative Complication during Cataract Surgery Based on Data from 900,000 Eyes – Previous Intravitreal Injection is a Risk Factor 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Differences in Characteristics of Medicare Patients Treated by Ophthalmologists and Optometrists 94%
- The evaluation of a web‐based tool for measuring the uncorrected visual acuity and refractive error in keratoconus eyes: a prospective open‐label method comparison study 93%
- Knowledge and Awareness-based Survey of COVID-19 within the Eye Care Profession in Nepal: Misinformation is Hiding the Truth. 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Automated vision screening of children using a mobile graphic device 93%
- Increasing frequency of hospital admissions for retinal detachment and vitreo-retinal surgery in England 2000-2018 92%
- An Open-Source Dataset Of Anti-Vegf Therapy In Diabetic Macular Oedema Patients Over Four Years & Their Visual Outcomes 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.